United States of America v. Edgar Javier Gutierrez- Espinoza

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDGAR JAVIER GUTIERREZ-
ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50428
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-04263-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Javier Gutierrez-Espinoza appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for transportation of certain aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(i), and aiding and abetting, in violation of
* 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
JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-50428
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
Gutierrez-Espinoza contends that the district court erred by denying the
parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1
and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We do not review the denial
of a fast-track departure for procedural correctness, but rather as part of our review
of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Rosales-
Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the 27-month sentence, which is substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Gutierrez-Espinoza’s significant criminal history. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d at 1184.
Moreover, contrary to Gutierrez-Espinoza’s contention, the district court
thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --