NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50201
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:19-cr-04901-LAB-3
v.
ALBERTO LOPEZ-CASTANEDA, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Margarito Betancourt-Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Lopez-Castaneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Lopez-Castaneda contends that the district court abused its discretion by
improperly relying on his criminal and immigration history to deny the parties’
joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 rather than
evaluating whether he complied with the program’s requirements and facilitated its
policy goals. We review the denial of a fast-track departure as part of our review
of the overall reasonableness of a sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales,
801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court’s consideration of Lopez-
Castaneda’s criminal and immigration history was proper, and, in light of that
history and the need for deterrence, the sentence is substantively reasonable
notwithstanding the timeliness of Lopez-Castaneda’s plea. See id. at 1184-85;
United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The
weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the
district court.”). We reject Lopez-Castaneda’s claim that the district court
interfered with prosecutorial discretion when it inquired into the reasons for the
joint recommendation.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-50201