USA V. ROMAN BENTURA-ORTIZ, No. 15-50106 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-50106 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02954-LAB 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.