N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. EFR AIN M AR TIN THOM AS, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50065

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-02530-LAB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 18, 2017 ** B e fore : TR OTT, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Efra in M artin Thom a s a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 36-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for be ing a re m ove d a lie n found in the Unite d State s, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JAN 23 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Thom a s c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt e rre d by

re fusing to gra

nt the gove rnm e nt’ s m o tion for a four-le ve l fa st-tra c k

de pa rture unde r U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, and inste a d gra

nting only

a one -le ve l de pa

rture . “ In an a ly z ing c h a l le nge s to a c ourt’ s upwa

rd a nd downwa

rd de pa rture s . . . unde r Se c tion 5K, wedo not e va luate the m for proc e dura l c orre c tne ss, but ra t he r, a s pa rt of a se nte nc e ’ s substa

ntive re a s ona ble ne s s.” Unite d State

s v . Ellis , 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th C i r. 2011). The 36-m onth se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the

18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c t ors a n d the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, inc luding Thoma s’ s c rim ina l a nd im m igration history . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Furthe r, c ontra ry to Thom a s’ s a

rgum e nt, there c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t c ourt prope rly ba se d its de nia l of thefull fa st-tra c k de p arture on individua

liz e d fa c tors a

nd not on a bla nke t polic y

of de ny ing fa st-tra c k de pa rture s. Se eUnite d State

s v . Rosale

sGonzale s , 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th C ir. 2015). Thom a s ne xt c onte nds tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d

in fa iling to rule

on his m otion for a

downwa rd de pa rture unde r U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b). W e re vie wfor pla in e rror, se eUnite d State

s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd c onc lude the re wa s none . The re c o rd re fle c ts tha t the distric t

c o urt c onside re d Thom a s’ s m otion a n d de te rm ine d

tha t c irc um sta

nc e s did not wa

rrant a downwa rd de pa rture . C ontra

ry to Thom a s’ c o nte ntions, the distric t c o urt did not

1 6 - 5 0 0 6 5 2viola

te Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32 be c a use Thom a s did not rai se any fa c t ua l c ha l le nge s to the pre se nte nc e re port tha t the distric t c ourt ha d to re solve . Se eUnite d State

s v . Graje da , 581 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 6 - 5 0 0 6 5 3