NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50269 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-04136-LAB-1 v. JORGE TORRES-GONZALEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. 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. Jorge Torres-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 68-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial 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). Torres-Gonzalez first contends that the district court’s pre-trial ruling that it would deny a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 violated his constitutional rights and unfairly compelled him to go to trial. However, the district court has discretion to grant or deny a fast-track departure, and the record refutes Torres-Gonzalez’s suggestion that the district court’s reason for denying the reduction was improper. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2015) (district court may exercise its discretion to deny a fast- track reduction based on the defendant’s criminal and immigration history). Moreover, because Torres-Gonzalez ultimately elected to go to trial, the district court properly concluded that he was ineligible for the departure. See United States v. Heredia, 768 F.3d 1220, 1237 (9th Cir. 2014) (fast-track departures are available to defendants “who quickly plead guilty”). Torres-Gonzalez also contends that the district court misapplied U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and violated his constitutional rights by denying an acceptance of responsibility adjustment after indicating pre-trial that he would receive the adjustment. However, the court’s statement that Torres-Gonzalez would receive the adjustment was made before he elected to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. Contrary to Torres-Gonzalez’s argument, the record reflects that the court thereafter denied the adjustment, not on the basis that Torres-Gonzalez went to trial, but rather because he contested his factual guilt at trial and did not show 2 18-50269 contrition at sentencing. The court’s finding that these actions reflected that Torres-Gonzalez did not accept responsibility for his offense was not clearly erroneous. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.2; United States v. Rodriguez, 851 F.3d 931, 949 (9th Cir. 2017) (acceptance adjustment “is not intended to apply to a defendant … who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Lastly, Torres-Gonzalez contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 68-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals