United States v. Jose Pulido-Gonzalez , 384 F. App'x 677 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10176
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00839-ROS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSE PULIDO-GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Pulido-Gonzalez appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Pulido-Gonzalez contends that the Government’s refusal to offer him a fast-
track plea bargain because of his criminal and immigration history violated his
constitutional rights. This contention lacks merit because the decision not to offer
Pulido-Gonzalez a fast-track plea was within the prosecutor’s discretion, and the
district court did not clearly err when it concluded that Pulido-Gonzalez did not
meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of invidious discrimination. See
United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464-65 (1996); see also United States v.
Estrada-Plata, 57 F.3d 757, 760-61 (9th Cir. 1995).
Pulido-Gonzalez next contends that the district court procedurally erred and
that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court: (1) failed
to consider sentencing disparities with other defendants offered fast-track
dispositions; and (2) treated the Guidelines as mandatory. The record indicates
that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 991-92, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Gonzalez-
Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 83 (2009). Further,
considering the totality of the circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is
substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-10176