
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis PEREZ-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50036
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 2, 2016
    Ajay Krishnamurthy, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Kathryn A. Thickstun, Attorney, Law Offices of Kathryn A. Thickstun, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis PerezARios 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. Wé have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez-Rios 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 because the district court allegedly based its determination on a disagreement with the Congressional policy that authorizes fast-track departures. Contrary to Perez-Rios’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on the individualized factors of his case, including his substantial criminal history and the need for deterrence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015) (district court must consider individual factors and exercise its discretion when evaluating whether to grant a fast-track departure).

Perez-Rios next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the district court’s allegedly erroneous denial of the fast-track departure. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Rios’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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