United States of America v. Luis Carlos Saavedra- Bustamante

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LUIS CARLOS SAAVEDRA-
BUSTAMANTE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10201
D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00143-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Carlos Saavedra-Bustamante appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 15-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for reentry of a removed alien, 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).
FILED
DEC 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10201
Saavedra-Bustamante contends that the district court procedurally erred by
considering impermissible factors, and by failing to give adequate reasons for
denying his request for a fast-track departure. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
conclude that there is none. The district court properly considered information
about Saavedra-Busamante’s criminal history, including his prior lenient sentences
and prior arrests, all of which was contained in the uncontested Presentence
Report, and was explicitly adopted by Saavedra-Bustamante in his sentencing
papers. See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (A district court “may rely on undisputed statements in the PSR at
sentencing.”). Moreover, the court’s reasons for denying the fast-track departure
are apparent from the record, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc), and the court adequately explained its reasons for the within-
Guidelines sentence, see id.
To the extent Saavedra-Bustamante contends that the government was
required to offer him a fast-track plea agreement because he pled guilty quickly, or
to explain why it did not offer him such a plea agreement, he provides no support
for his argument.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --