
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aristeo ORTIZ-SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Aristeo Cortez-Sanchez, a.k.a. Mario Gomez-Sanchez, a.k.a. Aristeo Sanchez Ortiz, a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez-Cortez, a.k.a. Teo, a.k.a. Geraldo Valencia, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50160.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2015.
    Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Sandra Payne Hagood, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas Colton Brown, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aristeo Ortiz-Sanchez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 75-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.

Ortiz-Sanchez contends that the district court’s discretionary denial of a fast-track. departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 rendered his sentence substantively unreasonable. “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.” United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir.2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ortiz-Sanchez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The'within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § .3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ortiz-Sanchez’s criminal history and numerous prior deportations. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     