NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ANGEL REYES

- TORRES,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 50045
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 04986

- LAB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2019 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Angel Reyes

- Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18

- month sentence , three

- year term of supervised release, and three conditions 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. § 132 6

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 50045

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and remand with instructions

. Reyes

- Torres contends that the district court erred by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast

- track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. We review the denial of a fast

- track departure only as part of our review of the overall substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Rosales

- Gonzales , 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). 1 The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the 18

- month sentence, which is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Reyes

- Torres’s significant immigration and criminal history. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

. Reyes

- Torres next contends that the district court erred by failing to calculate the Guidelines range for the supervised release term and by insufficient ly explaining its decision to impose a three

- year term . We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- B arragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and

1 Contrary to Reyes

- Torres’s argument, Rosales

- Gonzales is not “clearl y irreconcilable” with Molina

- Martinez v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016). See Miller v. Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Thus, we remain bound by Rosales

- Gonzales . The record belies Reyes

- Torres’s contention that the district c ourt denied the fast

- track departure based on a blanket policy. Rather, the record reflect s that t he court properly declined to grant the departure based on the particular circumstances of Reyes

- Torres’s case. See Rosales

- Gonzales , 801 F.3d at 1183

- 84.3 19

- 50045

conclude that there is none. On this record, Reyes

- Torres has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court expressly calculated the applicable Guidelines range or more fully explained its decision to impose the three

- year term of supervised release. See United States v. Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008)

. Finally, the government concedes, and we agree, that conditions 4, 7, and 8 in the written judgment conflict with the oral pronouncement of sentence, which did not include these nonstandard conditions. See United States v. Napier , 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006). We thus remand and instruct the district court to strike conditions 4 , 7, and 8 from the written judgment. See United States v. Hicks , 997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED with instructions.