UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ CRUZ (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Francisco Gomez-Cruz appeals the 16-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 10-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez-Cruz contends that the aggregate 26-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a two-level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, and that the circumstances did not support consecutive high-end sentences. 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); United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The 26-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gomez-Cruz’s significant immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Moreover, contrary to Gomez-Cruz’s contentions, the district court considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts, see United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”).

AFFIRMED.