MEMORANDUM

Julio Zamudio-Dimas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien! in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Zamudio-Dimas contends that the district court failed to use the correctly calculated Guidelines range as an initial benchmark at sentencing because it failed to grant a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. We disagree. Departures are not part of the Guidelines calculation, and we do not review the procedural correctness of the denial of a requested departure. See United States v. Evans— Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir.2010) (“[I]t is the pre-departure Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate.”); United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir.2011) (“In analyzing challenges to a court’s upward and downward departures ... under Section 5K, we do not evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part of a sentence’s substantive reasonableness.”). The district court satisfied its procedural obligations by correctly calculating the Guidelines range without the fast-track departure.

Zamudio-Dimas also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence because it did not grant the fast-track departure. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Zamudio-Dimas’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 24-month sentence, in the middle of the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Zamudio-Dimas’s extensive history of immigration violations. See id.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.