UNITED STATES v. BUSTOS GUTIERREZ (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Salvador Bustos-Gutierrez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 50-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bustos-Gutierrez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint request for a four-level, fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. He argues that the court acted pursuant to an improper blanket policy of denying fast-track adjustments to defendants with a prior immigration history. The record belies Bustos-Gutierrez’s claim. The district court explained that it was denying a fast-track departure in Bustos-Gutierrez’s case because of his particular circumstances, especially his extensive immigration record, his prior participation in the fast-track program, and his criminal history. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015).

Bustos-Gutierrez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court gave excessive weight to the need to deter and too little weight to his personal characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). “The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 the length of Bustos-Gutierrez’s prior sentences for the same offense, see United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2015), and does not create unwarranted sentencing disparities.

AFFIRMED.