
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damaso DURAN-RENDON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50046
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Meghan Heesch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, San Diego County Office/Fed. Office Bldg., San Diego, CA, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA for Plaintiff-Appellee
    L. Marcel Stewart, Attorney, Law Office of L Marcel Stewart, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Damaso Duran-Rendon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 27-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.

Duran-Rendon contends that the district court erred by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 based on a policy of denying a fast-track departure to a defendant who has previously received one. Contrary to Duran-Rendon’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its decision on the individualized factors of his case, including his immigration and criminal history. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015). Insofar as Duran-Rendon argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the court’s denial of the departure, the court did not abuse its discretion. See id. at 1182, 1184. The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d at 1184-85.

Duran-Rendon also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and address his mitigating arguments and all of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and by failing to explain the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and hold there is none. The record reflects that the court considered Duran-Rendon’s arguments and the relevant sentencing factors, and its explanation of the sentence was sufficient. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     