
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain Martin THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50065
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 23, 2017
    Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Michael L. Crowley, Attorney, Crowley Law Group, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

' Efrain Martin Thomas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-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.

Thomas contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant the government’s motion for a four-level fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, and instead granting only a one-level departure. “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 36-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Thomas’s criminal and immigration history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Further, contrary to Thomas’s argument, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the full fast-track departure on individualized factors and not on a blanket policy of denying fast-track .departures. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015).

Thomas next contends that the district court erred in failing to rule on his motion for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Thomas’s motion and determined that circumstances did not warrant a downward departure. Contrary to Thomas’ contentions, the district court did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 because Thomas did not raise any factual challenges to the presentence report that the district court had to resolve. See United States v. Grajeda, 581 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009).

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