NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50428 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-04263-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* EDGAR JAVIER GUTIERREZ- ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Javier Gutierrez-Espinoza appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of certain aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(i), and aiding and abetting, in violation of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gutierrez-Espinoza contends that the district court erred by denying the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We do not review the denial of a fast-track departure for procedural correctness, but rather as part of our review of the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Rosales- Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 27-month sentence, which is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gutierrez-Espinoza’s significant criminal history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d at 1184.

Moreover, contrary to Gutierrez-Espinoza’s contention, the district court thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-50428