gno.law

United States v. Luis Perez-Rios

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 16-50036 · 2016-11-02 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis PEREZ-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Edward Leavy (author), Susan Graber, Morgan Christen

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50036 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02562-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* LUIS PEREZ-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Perez-Rios appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-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). Perez-Rios 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 because the district court allegedly based its determination on a disagreement with the Congressional policy that authorizes fast-track departures.

Contrary to Perez-Rios’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on the individualized factors of his case, including his substantial criminal history and the need for deterrence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015)

(district court must consider individual factors and exercise its discretion when evaluating whether to grant a fast-track departure).

Perez-Rios next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s allegedly erroneous denial of the fast-track departure.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Rios’s sentence.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 16-50036

Cites, in this corpus