UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael RUIZ-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant, 624 F. App'x 578

MEMORANDUM Rafael Ruiz-Ruiz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-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. Ruiz-Ruiz 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 Ruiz-Ruiz’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 to a certain group of defendants. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir.2015). We likewise reject Ruiz-Ruiz’s argument that the district court’s denial of the fast-track departure was improper because it interfered with the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in plea bargaining. See id. at 1183.

Finally, Ruiz-Ruiz argues that his .sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the court’s denial of the fast-track departure and its focus on the need for deterrence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(

a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ruiz-Ruiz’s immigration history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; 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.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.