Court Opinion

ID: 4359916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-17 21:00:34.578957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:42.219063
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-50085

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:17-cr-03465-LAB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ALLAN ROBERTO GUEVARA-LOPEZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                           Submitted January 15, 2019**

Before:      TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

      Allan Roberto Guevara-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 36-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).
      Guevara-Lopez contends that the district court procedurally erred by

refusing to apply the current Guidelines. Contrary to Guevara-Lopez’s contention,

we review this claim for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The

district court correctly calculated the Guidelines range under the amended version

of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, and used that range as the starting point for its sentencing

decision. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). Nothing in the record

supports Guevara-Lopez’s argument that the court ignored the purpose behind the

amendment to section 2L1.2 or the policy statement authorizing fast-track

departures under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1.

      Guevara-Lopez also argues that the district court abused its discretion and

violated his constitutional rights by denying a fast-track departure and varying

upward from the Guidelines range. The record reflects that the district court

properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on individualized factors,

including Guevara-Lopez’s immigration history. See United States v. Rosales-

Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015). The court permissibly considered

Guevara-Lopez’s prior sentences when evaluating what sentence would be

sufficient to achieve deterrence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), and did not abuse

its discretion by varying upward from the Guidelines range to impose a sentence

greater than the one Guevara-Lopez received in 2014 for the same offense. See

                                          2                                     18-50085
United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2015).

      AFFIRMED.

                                       3                                  18-50085