Court Opinion

ID: 3214959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-20 21:01:01.52231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:37.499250
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      JUN 20 2016
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 15-50106

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02954-LAB

    v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 ROMAN BENTURA-ORTIZ,

              Defendant-Appellant.

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

                              Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before:        BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

         Roman Bentura-Ortiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 16-month custodial sentence and 3-year term of supervised release

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in

the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under

         *
             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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Bentura-Ortiz first contends that the district court abused its discretion by

denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under

U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. Contrary to Bentura-Ortiz’s argument, the record reflects that

the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on

individualized factors and not on a blanket policy of denying fast-track departures.

See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015).

      Bentura-Ortiz next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Bentura-Ortiz’s

immigration history and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704

F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012) (imposition of supervised release as a deterrent

was reasonable). Moreover, contrary to Bentura-Ortiz’s contention, the record

reflects that the district court considered the applicable section 3553(a) factors and

sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                   15-50106