USA V. LUIS SAAVEDRA-BUSTAMANTE, No. 18-10201 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-10201 D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00143-RCC v. MEMORANDUM* LUIS CARLOS SAAVEDRABUSTAMANTE, Defendant-Appellant. 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). 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 withinGuidelines 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 18-10201
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.
