United States of America v. Salvador Bustos-Gutierrez, a.k.a. Santos Carrillo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SALVADOR BUSTOS-GUTIERREZ, a.k.a.
Santos Carrillo,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50081
D.C. No. 3:17-cr-03392-LAB
MEMORANDUM*
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.
Salvador Bustos-Gutierrez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 50-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
attempted 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
JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-50081
Bustos-Gutierrez contends that the district court abused its discretion by
denying the parties’ joint request for a four-level, fast-track departure under
U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. He argues that the court acted pursuant to an improper blanket
policy of denying fast-track adjustments to defendants with a prior immigration
history. The record belies Bustos-Gutierrez’s claim. The district court explained
that it was denying a fast-track departure in Bustos-Gutierrez’s case because of his
particular circumstances, especially his extensive immigration record, his prior
participation in the fast-track program, and his criminal history. See United States
v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015).
Bustos-Gutierrez next contends that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court gave excessive weight to the need to deter
and too little weight to his personal characteristics. The district court did not abuse
its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “The weight to
be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district
court.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009).
The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the length of Bustos-Gutierrez’s prior sentences for the same offense, see United
States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2015), and does not
create unwarranted sentencing disparities.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --