Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0646-01.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. Luis GOMEZ-PEREZ, a.k.a. Luis Perez-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50474.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
    Julia Anne Cline, U.S. Department of Justice, Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Luis Perez-Gomez, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Kara Hartzler, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Gomez-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 16-month custodial sentence and three-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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez-Perez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. However, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on individualized factors, rather than a blanket policy of denying fast-track departures to a certain group of defendants. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir.2015).

We likewise reject Gomez-Perez’s argument that the district court’s denial of the fast-track departure improperly interfered with the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in plea bargaining or otherwise violated the separation of powers doctrine. See id. at 1183.

Finally, Gomez-Perez argues that his custodial sentence and term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors and the court’s allegedly erroneous denial of the fast-track departure. 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 sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.