gno.law

United States v. Roman Bentura-Ortiz

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 15-50106 · 2016-06-20 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roman BENTURA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Carlos T. Bea (author), Paul J. Watford, Michelle T. Friedland

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50106 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02954-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* ROMAN BENTURA-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Roman Bentura-Ortiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 16-month custodial sentence and 3-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bentura-Ortiz first contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. Contrary to Bentura-Ortiz’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on individualized factors and not on a blanket policy of denying fast-track departures.

See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015).

Bentura-Ortiz next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Bentura-Ortiz’s immigration history and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012) (imposition of supervised release as a deterrent was reasonable). Moreover, contrary to Bentura-Ortiz’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered the applicable section 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50106

Cites, in this corpus