United States v. Baldemar Hernandez-Alvarez

MEMORANDUM

Baldemar Hernandez-Alvarez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 119-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed ahen, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Hernandez-Alvarez contends that the district court erred by failing to use the Guidelines range as the starting point in its sentencing analysis. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The district court properly used the Guidelines range as the starting point in the sentencing process and kept the range in mind while weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors. See United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir.2009).

Hernandez-Alvarez also contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it resulted from the district court’s abuse of discretion in denying a fast-track departure and because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing purposes set forth in section 3553(a). We do not review the district court’s discretionary decision to decline a fast-track departure except as…