Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PULIDO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-21
Citations: 384 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 09-10176
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PULIDO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 384
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose PULIDO-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10176.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 21, 2010.
Josh Patrick Parecki, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Daniel Robert Drake, Drake Law, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Jose Pulido-Gonzalez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pulido-Gonzalez contends that the Government's refusal to offer him a fast-track plea bargain because of his criminal and immigration history violated his constitutional rights. This contention lacks merit because the decision not to offer Pulido-Gonzalez a fast-track plea was within the prosecutor's discretion, and the district court did not clearly err when it concluded that Pulido-Gonzalez did not meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of invidious discrimination. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464-65, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996); see also United States v. Estrada-Plata, 57 F.3d 757, 760-61 (9th Cir.1995).
Pulido-Gonzalez next contends that the district court proeedurally erred and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court: (1) failed to consider sentencing disparities with other defendants offered fast-track dispositions; and (2) treated the Guidelines as mandatory. The record indicates that the district court did not proeedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 83, 175 L.Ed.2d 57 (2009). Further, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.