Court Opinion

ID: 5125998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-15 21:00:40.379103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:53.720743
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 15 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 20-50201

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:19-cr-04901-LAB-3

 v.

ALBERTO LOPEZ-CASTANEDA, AKA                    MEMORANDUM*
Margarito Betancourt-Lopez,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                          Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Alberto Lopez-Castaneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30-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.

      *
             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).
      Lopez-Castaneda contends that the district court abused its discretion by

improperly relying on his criminal and immigration history to deny the parties’

joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 rather than

evaluating whether he complied with the program’s requirements and facilitated its

policy goals. We review the denial of a fast-track departure as part of our review

of the overall reasonableness of a sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales,

801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court’s consideration of Lopez-

Castaneda’s criminal and immigration history was proper, and, in light of that

history and the need for deterrence, the sentence is substantively reasonable

notwithstanding the timeliness of Lopez-Castaneda’s plea. See id. at 1184-85;

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.”). We reject Lopez-Castaneda’s claim that the district court

interfered with prosecutorial discretion when it inquired into the reasons for the

joint recommendation.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    20-50201