The Honor able Rober t H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Eastern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0477n.06 No. 09-3094 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v.
T OM AS P E R E Z-S AN C HE Z, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE NOR THE RN DI S TR I CT OF O H IO

Be fore : SI L ER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; CL EL AND, District Judge
. * SILE R , Circuit J udg e. Tomas Pe re z -Sanche z pled guilty to ree nteringthe country afte r deportation. At sentenci n g, h e u rged the district court to dec rea se his sentenc e due to dispar ities be tw e e n h is Guid e lin e ra

ng e and tha t of sim ila rl y sit uate d de fe nd ants se nte nc e d in dis tr ic ts w ithfa sttrack prog rams. The district court re jected this ar g ument and sente nced Per ez-Sanche z to 40 months’ imprisonment (a below-Guideline sentenc e). F or the reasons discussed be low, we AF F IRM his sentence
.

F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Perez-Sanche z pled guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) (2) by illega lly ree ntering the United States af

ter be ing de ported. At sente ncing , he sought a four level variance from his 46-57 month Guideline rang e on the basis that a se ntence within that rang e would re sult in an unwarr antedNo. 09-3094

United States v. Pe rez-Sanc hez

- 2 - se nte nc ingdis pa

ri ty fr om s e nte nces im po se d in dis tr ic ts p art ic ipatin g in f a st- tr a c k p ro g ra

ms. Specifica lly , he urg ed the district court to consider a Guideline rang e of 30 to 37 months based on the fa st-trac k prog ram sentencing rang e available in other dist ricts. The dist rict cour t reduc ed the sentenc e it imposed by six months to acc ount f or time Per ez-Sanche z had spent in state custody on
a do me sti c vi ol ence charg e fo r whic h Pe re z-Sa nc he z did no t ha ve c ouns e l but de c lin e d to g ra nt a
re du c tio n b a se d o n a

se nte nc ingdis pa

ri ty . It st a te d: Ido not be lieve that it’s a

ppropriate to adjust the sentence in this di strict beca use of the compellingand over

whe l m i n g nece ssity

that has led to the, quote, f ast trac k pr og ra m in the bord e r d istri c ts. Ithi nk , th e re fo re , I ’m no t g oin g to t ake tha

t in to acc ount. Iunderstand that Icould; howeve r, I think in lig ht of

my understandingof preva iling ca se law and also the differ ence in c ircumstance s betwee n this dist rict and those districts, I ’m not g oing to take that into account. L a te r, the g ov e rnme nt s ou g ht c lari fi c a tio n fr om the dis tr ic t court a bo ut i ts r e a so nin g fo r r e fu sin g to consider the disp ar i t y i n sentenc ing Per ez-Sanche z. Government’s c ounsel asked, “ The Court’s statement that it would not follow the border s tates’ fast trac k prog ram, doe s the Court state that as a matter of bot h law and fac tor [si c] simply a matter of l aw. Eve n if y ou could, y ou would not do it ?” T h e c o urt r e s p o n ded, “Even i f I c o u ld , Iw o u ld n o t d o it

— . ” T h e c o urt c o n s id e r e d Pe r e zSanchez’s multiple ree ntries and c riminal history cate g ory as ag g ravating f

actor s that encour ag ed the c ourt to r e ma in w ith in t

he Gu ide lin e s and

se nte nc e d Pe re z-Sa

nc he z to 4 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt. AN AL YSI S O na p p e a l, Pe r e z- Sa

n c h e z c h a ll e n g e s o n ly

th e p r o c e d

ur a l r e a s o n a

b le n e s s o f

th e d is tr ic t court’s se ntence
. He argues that the district cour t erre d by concludingit could not consider the disparity cre ated by the fast-tra ck prog rams in some districts. W e re view both the proc edura l andNo. 09-3094

United States v. Pe rez-Sanc hez

- 3 - substantive rea sonablene ss of the district court ’s s en t en ce usinga def ere ntial abuse of disc retion standard. United States v. Pe rez-Vasque z , 5 7 0 F. 3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 5 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007))
. Perez-Sanche z is corr ect that the district c ourt could have deviated from the Guide lines if it disagr eed w ith the policy underly ing the disparities cre ated by the pre sence of fa st-trac k prog rams in other districts. See United States v. Camacho- Arellano , No. 07-5427, 2010 U.S. Ap p . L e xis 1 4 5 6 9 , a t * 1 6
- 1 7 ( Ju ly 1 6 , 2 0 1 0 )
. H o w e v e r , th e r e c o r d is c le ar th a t t h e d is tr ict court, re g ardle ss of its discretion, woul d n o t h ave de cre ased Per ez-Sanche z’s sentence to acc ount for f ast trac k disparities. S

e e U n ite d S ta te s v . P o rter , 3 1 2 F. App’x 772, 776 (6th Cir. 2009) (explaining that re mand is only appropr iate whe n the re cord shows “ that the district court wa s
un awa re of its a uth or ity or wo uld have imp os e d a dif fe re nt s e nte nc e po st Sp e ar s ” ); se e als o United States v. Santillana , 540 F.3d 428, 431 ( 6t h C i r. 2008) (“[W ]e presume that the district c ourt understood its discretion, abse nt clear evidenc e to the contr ary .”). In it s f ir st s tate me nt t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ind ic a te d that it c ou ld c on sid e r t

he fa st- tr a c k d isp ari ty but c hose not to. This c hoice not to c onsider the f ast-tra ck disparity

indicates that e ven if we wer e to remand f

or the district cour

t to consider the dispa

rity , it would not find the argument persua sive. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se c on d s tate me nt c le arl y ind ic a te s th a t r e g ard le ss o f wh eth er th e c ourt c ou ld consider f ast-tra ck disparities, it would not in this case. Thus, both statements of the district c ourt indicate that it would not have de cre ased Per ez-Sanche z’s sentence , reg ardle ss of its discretion. AF F IRMED.