USA V. LUIS PEREZ-RIOS, No. 16-50036 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 2 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50036 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02562-LAB MEMORANDUM* LUIS PEREZ-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Luis Perez-Rios appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, 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). Perez-Rios 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 because the district court allegedly based its determination on a disagreement with the Congressional policy that authorizes fast-track departures. Contrary to Perez-Rios’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on the individualized factors of his case, including his substantial criminal history and the need for deterrence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015) (district court must consider individual factors and exercise its discretion when evaluating whether to grant a fast-track departure). Perez-Rios next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s allegedly erroneous denial of the fast-track departure. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Rios’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 16-50036
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.
