Court Opinion

ID: 4370455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-22 21:00:51.682232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:49:06.738638
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-50265

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:18-cr-01099-LAB

 v.

JESUS ESCOBOZA-SOTO,                            MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                          Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Jesus Escoboza-Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 33-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).
      Escoboza-Soto contends that the district court erred by granting only a one-

level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, rather than the four-level

departure requested by the parties, and imposing a sentence at the low end of the

resulting Guidelines calculation. “In analyzing challenges to a court’s upward and

downward departures to a specific offense characteristic or other adjustment under

Section 5K, we do not evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part

of a sentence’s substantive reasonableness.” United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411,

421 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

Escoboza-Soto’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The

33-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances articulated by the district

court, including Escoboza-Soto’s serious criminal history, numerous prior

deportations, and failure to be deterred despite receiving a fast-track departure for a

previous illegal reentry offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     18-50265