Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey CONLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-03
Citations: 669 F. App'x 433
Docket Number: No. 15-50347
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey CONLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey CONLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50347
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 03, 2016
Ajay Krishnamurthy, Michael G. Wheat, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA.
Todd William Burns, Burns & Cohan, Attorneys at Law, San Diego, CA.
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Casey Conley appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Conley contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the parties' recommendation for a three-level, fast track departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, and by denying the government's recommendation for a six-level departure for substantial assistance pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The record reflects that the district court considered both the fast track and substantial assistance recommendations, and determined that a total one-level reduction was appropriate. See United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) ("A district court's decision to grant (a substantial assistance] motion does not bind the court . to stay at the level recommended by the government.").
To the extent Conley challenges the district court's discretionary decisions regarding the fast track'and substantial assistance departures, our review is limited to determining whether the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Conley's sentence. 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) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Conley's exten sive criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.