United States v. Roman Bentura-Ortiz

654 F. App'x 313

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 20, 2016
• Docket: 15-50106
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (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.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.