Court Opinion

ID: 4417699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-17 20:00:31.766794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:47.085863
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 17 2019
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 18-50428

                Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. No. 3:18-cr-04263-LAB-1

 v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
EDGAR JAVIER GUTIERREZ-
ESPINOZA,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                     Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before:      SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

      Edgar Javier Gutierrez-Espinoza appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea

conviction for transportation of certain aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(i), and aiding and abetting, in violation of

      *
             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).
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

we affirm.

      Gutierrez-Espinoza contends that the district court erred by denying the

parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1

and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We do not review the denial

of a fast-track departure for procedural correctness, but rather as part of our review

of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Rosales-

Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing the 27-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 Gutierrez-Espinoza’s significant criminal history. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d at 1184.

Moreover, contrary to Gutierrez-Espinoza’s contention, the district court

thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    18-50428