Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0499-01.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. Roberto Ayala AMARILLAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-50033
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Emily J, Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Anne Kristina Perry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Benjamin J. Cheeks, Attorney, Law Offices of Benjamin J. Cheeks, A.P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roberto Ayala Amarillas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 27-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.

Ayala contends that the district court improperly relied on his criminal history as a reason to deny the parties’ joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. The court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015) (district court properly exercised its discretion to deny fast-track departure on the basis of defendant’s immigration and criminal history). Moreover, the 27-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including his failure to be deterred by a previous 37-month sentence. See Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d at 1184-85.

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