United States of America v. ALBERTO LOPEZ-CASTANEDA, AKA Margarito Betancourt-Lopez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALBERTO LOPEZ-CASTANEDA, AKA
Margarito Betancourt-Lopez,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-50201
D.C. No. 3:19-cr-04901-LAB-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Lopez-Castaneda appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 30-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).
FILED
NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-50201
Lopez-Castaneda contends that the district court abused its discretion by
improperly relying on his criminal and immigration history to deny the parties’
joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 rather than
evaluating whether he complied with the program’s requirements and facilitated its
policy goals. We review the denial of a fast-track departure as part of our review
of the overall reasonableness of a sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales,
801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court’s consideration of Lopez-
Castaneda’s criminal and immigration history was proper, and, in light of that
history and the need for deterrence, the sentence is substantively reasonable
notwithstanding the timeliness of Lopez-Castaneda’s plea. See id. at 1184-85;
United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The
weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the
district court.”). We reject Lopez-Castaneda’s claim that the district court
interfered with prosecutorial discretion when it inquired into the reasons for the
joint recommendation.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --