United States v. Edgar Gutierrez-Espinoza

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2019
• Docket: 18-50428
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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