United States v. Roman Bentura-Ortiz , 654 F. App'x 313 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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