Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael RUIZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 14-50492
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael RUIZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael RUIZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50492.
United States Court- of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vicki Marolt Buchanan, Esquire, Sono-ma, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rafael Ruiz-Ruiz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence 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.
Ruiz-Ruiz first contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties' joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. Contrary to Ruiz-Ruiz's argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on individualized factors and not on 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 Ruiz-Ruiz's argument that the district court's denial of the fast-track departure was improper because it interfered with the prosecutor's exercise of discretion in plea bargaining. See id. at 1183.
Finally, Ruiz-Ruiz argues that his .sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the court's denial of the fast-track departure and its focus on the need for deterrence. 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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ruiz-Ruiz's immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.2009) ("The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.