Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dario GONZALEZ-FAVELA, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 16-50114, 16-50124
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Karla Davis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, i Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Charles Guthrie, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Dario Gonzalez-Favela appeals the 63-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 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzalez-Favela contends that the district court erred by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.6. § 5K3.1 because it failed to engage in a comparative analysis of Gonzalez-Favela relative to other defendants with a criminal history category of VI who nevertheless received a fast-track departure. The court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1178 (9th Cir. 2015) (fast-track departure is “purely discretionary”). The record reflects that the court properly denied the departure based on the particular factors of Gonzalez-Fave-la’s case, including the court’s previous grant of a fast-track departure to Gonzalez-Favela, and his extensive immigration and criminal history. See id. at 1183-84. Moreover, the aggregate 75-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.