gno.law

United States v. Luis Gomez-Perez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 14-50474 · 2016-01-28 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis GOMEZ-PEREZ, A.K.A. Luis Perez-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
William C. Canby, Jr. (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Jacqueline H. Nguyen

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50474 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01892-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* LUIS GOMEZ-PEREZ, a.k.a. Luis Perez- Gomez, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2016** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Gomez-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 16-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United * 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). States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez-Perez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1.

However, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on individualized factors, rather than a blanket policy of denying fast-track departures to a certain group of defendants. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015).

We likewise reject Gomez-Perez’s argument that the district court’s denial of the fast-track departure improperly interfered with the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in plea bargaining or otherwise violated the separation of powers doctrine. See id. at 1183.

Finally, Gomez-Perez argues that his custodial sentence and term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the court’s allegedly erroneous denial of the fast-track departure. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-50474

Cites, in this corpus