United States v. Aristeo Ortiz-Sanchez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aristeo ORTIZ-SANCHEZ, A.K.A. Aristeo Cortez-Sanchez, A.K.A. Mario Gomez-Sanchez, A.K.A. Aristeo Sanchez Ortiz, A.K.A. Miguel Sanchez-Cortez, A.K.A. Teo, A.K.A. Geraldo Valencia, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Gould, Smith
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50160 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00044-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* ARISTEO ORTIZ-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Aristeo Cortez-Sanchez, a.k.a. Mario Gomez-Sanchez, a.k.a. Aristeo Sanchez Ortiz, a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez-Cortez, a.k.a. Teo, a.k.a. Geraldo Valencia, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Aristeo Ortiz-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 75-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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.
Ortiz-Sanchez contends that the district court’s discretionary denial of a fast- track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 rendered his sentence substantively unreasonable. “In analyzing challenges to a court’s upward and downward departures . . . under Section 5K, we do not evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part of a sentence’s substantive reasonableness.” United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ortiz-Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ortiz-Sanchez’s criminal history and numerous prior deportations. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50160