NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 16-50114
16-50124
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 3:15-cr-02884-LAB
v. 3:12-cr-01420-LAB
DARIO GONZALEZ-FAVELA,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Dario Gonzalez-Favela appeals the 63-month
sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a
removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 12-month consecutive
sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzalez-Favela contends that the district court erred by denying the
parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1
because it failed to engage in a comparative analysis of Gonzalez-Favela relative to
other defendants with a criminal history category of VI who nevertheless received
a fast-track departure. The court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v.
Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) (fast-track departure is
“purely discretionary”). The record reflects that the court properly denied the
departure based on the particular factors of Gonzalez-Favela’s case, including the
court’s previous grant of a fast-track departure to Gonzalez-Favela, and his
extensive immigration and criminal history. See id. at 1183-84. Moreover, the
aggregate 75-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50114 & 16-50124