United States of America v. Roman Bentura-Ortiz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-50106
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 of 2 --