## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09
- 3932 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S E R GI O S ANDO VAL R AMIRE Z, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 09 C R 50023-1

—Fr ederic k J . Kap ala, Judge
. N o. 10
- 2190 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v.
F RA NC I S CO O CAMPO -P I NE DA, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C R 632-1

—V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Judge .2 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 N o. 10
- 2689 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L UIS A. M ANDUJ ANO -G ONZALEZ, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C R 586-1

—A my J . St . E ve, Judge
. A RG UE D A PRI L 27, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 20, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. E VANS, C ircu it Judge. W e h a v e c o ns o l i da t e d the se ap p eals to an sw er a recu rri ng qu estion: W ha t evide nt iary sh ow in g m u st a d efe n d an t c h ar ge d w ith be in g fou n d in the Uni t e d S t a t e s a ft e r p r e v i o us l y ha v i ngb e e n de po r t e d, 8 U
. S. C. § 1326 ( a) , m ake bef or e a dist ri ct cou rt is obl i ged to cons ider hi s r eque stf o r a l o wers en te nc e to a cc o unt f orthe abse nce o fa f ast
- trac k progr am i n that j ud i ci al d i s t r i ct ? T h e qu e s t i o n h a s b e e n p e r c o l a t i n gs i n c e we de c i de d U nited Sta tes v. R eyes-H erna nd ez , 62 4 F
. 3d 405, 417, 42 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , w hi ch perm i ts sente nci ng co urts t o c o mp e n s a t e f o r f a s t
- t r a c k d i s p a r i t i e s b u t e mphasi zes th at no dist ri ct j ud ge i s r equi re d to eval uate th is m it i g at i nga r g um en t unt i l the de fen dan t demon-N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 3 st ra te s t h at h e w ou ld h av e b ee n eligib le t o p ar tic ip a te in a f ast
- tr ack prog ra m and, i n f act, w oul d hav e “p u rs ued th e o p tio n ” h ad it be en av aila b le. T h e c on to u rs of th is thre shol d quali fi cati on have not b ee n defined i n a publ i shed opi ni on, but f our nonprece denti alo rder s o ffer h elp fu l gu i d a n c e. SeeU nite d State s v. Va zquez-Pita , 41 1 F. A p p ’x 88 7 (7 th C i r. 20 11 ); U nited Sta tes v. M o ran t-Jo nes , 41 1 F . A p p ’x 88 5 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); U ni ted St at e s v. A bast a-R uiz , 40 9 F. A p p ’x 94 9 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); U nited Sta tes v. To r r e s - V

a squez , 406 F. A p p ’x 40 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ). A n d in o n e o fth e s e a p p e a l s n o w b e f o r e u s , we d i r e c t e d the par ti es t o s ubmi t su ppl ement als ta te m en ts a ddr es sing th e que st i o n. W e ho l d that a di str i ct c ourtneed n ot a d d re ss a f ast
tr ac ka r g um en t unl es s th e defen dant ha s sh o wn th athe is s im ilar ly sit u at ed to p er so n s w h o a c tu ally w ou ld re cei ve a benefi t in a f ast
- tr ack dist ri ct. That m eans that th e defen d ant m us t pr o m ptly pl ea d g ui l ty, a g r ee t o the f actualbas i s pro ffer ed by the g ove rnm ent, and execute ane nf o r ce ab l e wai ve r o fs pec i fi c r i g ht s be f o re or dur i ng th e pl ea c o l loqu y. I t al so mean s th atthe de fen dan t m ust e stabl i sh thathe w oul d re cei ve a fas t- tr ack sente nce i n a tl e a s to n e d i s t r i c to ffe r i n gth e p r o g r a m andsu b m it a t h or ou gh ac c ou n t o f th e like ly im p ris on m en t ra n ge in the di s t r i c t s wh e r e h e i s e l i g ib l e , a s we l l a c a nd i d a s s ess m ent o fthe num bero fpro gr am s forwh i ch he would not quali fy. U nti l the defe nd ant m eet s t h es e pr eco nd i ti ons, hi s “ d isp ar i ty” ar gum ent i s i l l usor y a nd m ay be pas sed ove r i n si l ence.4 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 I. T he three d efend an t s i n ou r cons oli d ated case are M exi can na tio nal s who w er e l i vi ng i n the U ni ted S tat es illeg ally . L u is M an d uj an o-G on za lez fir st en te re d th is cou nt ry w ithou t au th orization i n 19 98. Tw o ye a r s later, he was c onv i ct ed i n Indi an a o fb at te r i nghi s g i r l f r i en d and h er yo ung so n. The go ver nm ent r em ove d him to M ex i co a fte r hi s r el ea se fr o m pr i so n i n 2 00 6, b ut M an d uj an o re tu rn ed to th e U n i t ed Sta te s u n law fu lly. In 2009 , pol i ce in W aukeg an, I l l i noi s, arrested hi m f or dri vi ng under the i nfl uence o fal cohol
. H e was char ged i n fede r alc o urt w ith v i o l at i ng§ 1 32 6( a) , a nd nine m onths passed be f or e he plead ed guil ty. H e di d not wa i v e , ho we v e r, hi s r i g ht s t o fi l e pr e t r i a l mot i o ns , to a pp e a l, o r t o s e e kp o s t c o nv i c t i o n r e l i e fu nd er2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 255. A pro b at i on o ffi cercal cul ate d a to talo ffense l ev elo f2 1 an d a c r i m i na l

- hi st o ry cat eg o r y o fI I I, y i el di ng an i m pri sonm ent ran ge of46 to 57m onths. Thi s ca l cul ati on i ncl ud ed, am ong ot h er thi ngs, a 16- l eve l i ncre ase unde r U. S
. S
. G. § 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A)( ii ) be ca us e M an duj an o w as re m ove d fr om the U ni ted S tat es aftera convi cti on f ora fel ony cri m e o fvi ol ence

—beat i ng hi s g i rl f ri end’s 13- m o nth- o l d s o n. M an d uj an o s u b m itt ed a se n te n c in g m em or an d u m in w hi ch he a sse rt ed that the absence o fa “f asttra ck” program i n the N orthe rn District of I ll inois created an u nw arr an te d di sp ar i tyb etwee n h i s g ui del i ne s i m pr i so nm ent r ange and the sentences m ete d out i n f ast
- tr ack d ist ric ts . B u t h e d ed ica te d on ly on e p ar ag ra p h to th is conte nti on a nd d i dn ’ t e ven m enti on the cr i ter i a thatN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 5 d efe n d an ts in fa st -tr ac k d ist ric ts m u st m ee t t o ob ta in re l i ef, m uch l ess disc uss w hether he w oul d hav e be en el i gibl e t o parti ci pate in any ofthose f ast
- tr ack prog ra m s. A t th e s entenci ng hea ring, the dist ri ct j ud ge ask ed w hetherM anduj ano w oul d have be en el i gibl e forf ast
tr a c k re lief in a d ist ric t t h at offe re d it. “P ro b ab ly n ot,” M a nd ujano’s law yer con ced ed , since h is cl ient “d idn ’t do al l the thi ngs he m i ght ha ve had to do” to qual i fy. “ Th e n ho w i s the r e a di s pa r i t y, ” the j udg e p r e s s e d, i fM an duj an o woul d n ot ha ve r ec ei ve d a r edu ct i o n i n a f ast
- tr ack dist ri ct? The l aw yerhad n o answ er . W i th that the c ourtr ej ecte d t h e d i spari ty ar gum ent a nd se ntenced M anduj ano w i thi n the gui del i nes ra nge to 48 m onths. The c o ur t r ea so ne d tha t M an duj an o ha d not de m o ns t r a t e d h i s e l i g ib i l i t y f o r f a s t
- t r a c ks e nt e nc i ng a nd , i nde ed, tha t he pr o babl y was n’ t el i g ibl e to b eg i n wi th
. Our s ec o nd de fen dan t, S er g i o Ra m i r ez , fi r stent er ed th e U n ite d Sta te s in 19 90 an d w as gra n te d p e r m a n en t re sid en c y. B u t e igh t y ea rs lat er , he w as co n vic te d i n Il lin ois of a gg ra va te d kid n ap p in g, so im m i gr at ion offic ials re vo ked hi s s tatus and re m ove d him to M exi co. H e r eturned t o the Unite d Sta tes un l aw full y a nd was re m ove d a s eco nd ti m e in 200 5. Fo ur y ear s l ate r, i m m i gr ati on o ffi ci al s r ec ei ve d a tip thatRa m i r ez was b ac ki n the U nited States an d had ap p li ed f or an Illin ois driver’s l i ce ns e unde r an al i as . He was c ha r g ed unde r § 1 32 6( a) a nd ple aded gui l ty about th re e m onths l ate r. But he di d not w ai ve hi s r i g ht s t o fi l e p r e t r i a l mo t i o ns , t o a pp e a l, o r to see k pos tco nvi cti on r el i efunder § 2255
. A probati on offi cerco ncl ud ed that Ram i re z’ s co nvi cti on f orag gr avat ed ki dn apping const i tuted a cri m e o fvi ol ence6 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 f o r pur po se s o f§ 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A)( i i) a nd a cc o r di ng l y i ncre ase d his o ffense l eve l by16
. Ram i re z’ s t ota l o ffen se l eve l o f21 , c ou p led with a cr i m i nal

- hi sto rycat ego ryo f I I I, r esul ted i n a guidel i ne im p ris onm ent r ange of46 to 57 m onths. Li k e M an duj an o , Ra m i r ez s ubmi tt ed a se nt en ci ng m em o r a n d u m u rg in g t h e d ist ric t c ou rtto red u c e h is sente n c e b ase d on the purporte d dispar i ty ar i si ng fro m th e absen ce of a f ast-track program i n the N orthe rn Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s. But Ram i re z t oo fa iled to as ser t that h e w ou l d quali fy fora re du cti on i n a f ast
- tr ack dist ri ct. A n d atse n te n c in g h is la w ye r sa id n ot h in g a t a ll abou t fast track. T he govern m en t q ue stioned , how ever, w hetherRam i re z e ven would be el i gibl e forf ast
- tr ack sen ten cing an d i ns isted that, before the d istri ct cou rt coul d add re ss any s upp ose d sentencing di spari ty, Ram i re z fi rs t had to “s how thathe m i ght qual i fy” f or th e pr o g r am i n a fast-tra ckdi st r i ct . The c o ur t, c i ting pr ec ede nttha t we w o ul d l at ero ve r tu r n in R eyesHerna nd ez , co ncl ud ed that i t wa s fo rbi dd en fro m acc e pt i ngR a mi r e z ’ s f a s t
- tr a c ka r g ume nt . T he c o ur ta dde d, th o ug h, tha t i fg i ve n di sc r et i o n to ac ce pt Ra m i r ez ’ s ar g um ent, it sti l l would decl i ne to i m pose a l ower s entence because Ram i re z hadn’t“ d em onst ra ted thathe woul d be el i g ibl e f o r a f as t- tr ac k di spo si ti o n. ” Ra m i r ez w as sentence d w i thi n the gui del i nes r ange to 50 m onths. Ou r fi nal defen d an t, Fr anci sco Ocam po- Pi neda, was re m ove d fr om the U ni ted S tat es i n 200 2 a fte r he was c o nv i c t e d in I l l i no i s o fa g g r a v a t e d c r i mi na l s e xu a l ab us e. 720 I LC S 5/ 12- 16( d). H e r etur ned w i th ou t a uthor i zati onN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 7 and i n 200 4 was r em ove d a ga in
. Then i n 200 9, pol i ce i n Chicag o disc ove red Ocam po’ s pre sence w hen they sto pp ed hi m f ortr affi c vi ol ati ons. H e w as char ged w i th vi ol ati ng § 1326 ( a) and pl eaded gui l ty 10 w eeks l ate r. A p ro bati on o ffi ceri ncre ase d Ocam po’ s o ffense l eve l by16 afterco nc lu d i ng tha t hi s co nvi cti on under § 5 /1 2- 16( d) c onst itu te d a cri m e o fvi ol ence f orpurposes of§ 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) . Ocam po’ s t ota l o ffense l eve l o f21 an d c r i m i na l

- hi stor y c at eg o r y o fI Iy i el ded a g ui del i ne i m pri sonm ent r ange of41 to 51 m onths. A t s e n t en c in g, O c am p o p rin c ip ally arg u ed th at h is vi ol ati on o f § 5/ 12- 16( d) was nota cri m e o fvi ol ence because , h e ins i ste d, he co m m i tte d the o ffense m er el y b y to uc hinga t e e na g e r ’ s b r e a s t s wi tho uta nyu s e o r threa t of ph ysical f orce. T h e district cou rt disagree d
. For pu rp o s e s o f§ 2 L 1
. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) , th e c o u r te x p l a i n e d , a c r i me ofvi ol ence i ncl ud es any o ffense com pri si ng “s ex u al abuse of a m in or. ” See U
. S. S. G
. § 2L 1.2 cm t. n.1(B)(ii i)
. Lo o k i ng t o the l e t t e r o f the I l l i no i s s t a t ut e , whi c h f o rb i ds “se xual conduct” with anyo ne fro m ag e 13 t o age 16 by a per son w h o is at l eas t 5 ye ar s o l der, 72 0 I LC S 5/ 12- 16 ( d) , a nd de fi ne s “s ex ua l c o nduc t” t o i nc lud e to uch i ng the v i cti m ’ s g eni tal s o r bre ast s “ f orthe pu rpos e o fse xual gr ati fi cati on o r ar ousal, ” id. § 5/ 12
- 12 ( e) , the c o ur t co nclud ed that, as a m atter of co m m on sen se, O cam p o’s crim e con stitut ed sexu al abus e of a m inor. Inth e a lte rn at ive O c am p o a rg u ed that § 2 L1 .2(b )(1) (A )(ii) o ug htno t be a ppl i ed i n any ca se b ec au se , i n his view , the “se ver e” 16- l eve l i ncre ase se rv es no penol ogi calpurpose an d is no t su ppo r te d b y e m pi r i ca l e vi den ce . Aga i n the8 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 d istri ct cou rt w as not c onv inced ; b rus hin g a side Oc am p o’s gener al ize d at tacko n § 2 L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , the cour t r easone d that, i n thi s ca se , a sentence w i thi n the gui del i nes ra nge woul d app ro pri ate l y r efl ect the s er i ousne ss o f Ocam po’ s sexual

- abuse cri m e and s uffi ci entl y d ete r futur e § 13 26 ( a) v i o l atio ns b y o th er s r emov ed f r o m the cou nt ry after com m itti ng aggrav ated fel onie s . Oc am p o’s dal l i an ce wi tha t ee na g er w as “ ane xt r emel y e g r eg i o us o ffe ns e, ” th e co ur t el ab o r at ed, a nd hi s r etur ni ngt o the countr y a fter“har m i ng the co m m unity thro u gh [ hi s] acti ons and [hi s] vi olen c e in the past” pu t the publ i c at ris k a n d co u ld n ot“b e loo ke d u p on kin d ly.” Fi nal l y, Ocam po i m plo re d the di stri ct c ourtto se ntence hi m b e l o w hi s g ui de l i ne r a ng e b e c a us e o f the a b s e nc e o f a f a s t
- t r a c kp r o g r a m i n the No r the r n Di s t r i c to fI l l i noi s. Low er i ng hi s pri son ter m bythe eq u iva lent of4 offense l eve l s, Ocam po pro posed, would “el i m i nate an y d i scre pancy” be tw een hi s di str i ct o fc onvi cti on a nd the f ast
t r a c kdi s tr i c t s . T hi s di s c r e pa nc y a r o s e , h e a s s e r t e d, be ca us e he “ i s si m i l ar l y s ituat ed to de fen dan ts who re c eiv e f a s t t ra c k d isp os itio n s” an d “a lm os t c er ta in ly w oul d have r ecei ved a re du ced s en tence ” i fhe ha d been pi c k e d u p i n a f a s t
- t r a c k d i s t r i c t . O c a mpo p o i n t e d o ut th athe ha d pl ea ded gu il ty athi s fi r sto ppo r tu ni tya nd had not fi l ed any pretr i alm oti ons, and he a tta ched to a se n te n c in g m em or an d u m a c on d i tio n al w aiv er of h is ri ghts to fi l e a ny future m oti ons, a pp ealhi s s entence , o r m o unt a col l at er ala tt ac ko n h i s se nt en ce . Thi s do cum ent, wh i ch i s a form waive r that the F edera l Defender m ak es a va i l ab l e on i ts web si te , c o ndi ti o ns the r el i nqui sh

m ent of ri ghts on the defe nd ant’ s re cei vi ng “a se ntenceN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 9

R am ir ez t oo m akes an anci ll ary argum ent. H e points out that 1 the d istrict cou rt im p erm issibly ord ered him to p articip ate in the I nm at e Fi nan c i al Res pons ibi l i t y P rogr am . The gove rn m en t con ced es tha t this d irectiv e w as p lain err or b eca u se se ntenci ng c o u rt s d o not have the authority to m and ate partic ip a tio n in th e p ro g ra m . Uni t e d S t a t e s v . M unoz , 610 F. 3d 989, 99 7 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ). W e ag ree a nd m od ify the ju d g m en t to cl a ri fy th a t R a m ir ez ’s p a rt ic ip a t i o n i s v o lu n ta ry . S ee Un i te d S t at es v. Boyd , 60 8 F .3d 33 1 , 33 5 (7t h C ir .), cert . den i ed, 131 S . C t. 6 4 7(20 1 0 ). com men s ur a t e wi t h t he s e nt ences re cei ved by defe nd ants i n ‘ f a s t
- t r a c k ’ j ur i s di c t i o ns . ” T he re f or e, Ocam po i nsi ste d, he “s h oul d rec ei ve the s am e 4 l eve l decrea se i n hi s s entence thatwould be aff or ded an illeg al ree n tr y d efe n d an t un d er th e fast tr ac k p r o g ra m .” The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not co m m ent o n Ocam po’ s f ast
tr ack ar gum ent b ut di d sen tence hi m to 40 m onths, 1 m o nth l es s th anthe l o w end o fhi s 41
- to- 51- m o nths gui del i ne i m pri sonm ent r ange.
II. To r es o l ve the se a ppea l s, we m us t ha m m ero utthe det a i l s o f the s t e ps a de fe nd a nt mus t t a k e i n o r der t o sh ow th at a se n t en c e w ith in h is gu id elin es ran ge w ou ld c re at e d isp ar ity w ith se n te n c es im p os ed on sim ilar ly si tuate d defendants i n f ast
- tr ack dist ri cts. Bef or e we can a d d r e s s th e d e fe n d a n t s ’ f a s t
- t r a c ka r g u me n t s , th o u g h, we need to answer Ocam po’ s co ncer ns abo ut the calcul ati on o fhi s g ui del i ne s r an g e. He ins ists tha t to uch i nga t ee n- 1 age r’ s br eas ts does not requi re the use or thr eatof physi cal10 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 f or ce; thus, he c onte nd s, hi s p ri orco nvi cti on i s no t a cri m e of vi ol ence subj ect to a 16- l eve l i ncre as e u nd er § 2 L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i )
. I n supp or t he ci tes the re si du alcl ause of A p p li cation N ote 1(B )( ii i) , w hich de fines the term “crim e of viol en ce” to inclu d e, in ad d iti on to 12 enu m erate d offenses , “a ny o thero ffense und erfedera l, st ate , o r l oca l l aw thathas as an el em ent the use, at tem pted use, orthr eat en ed u se ofphysi calf or ce a gai nst the per son o fano the r . ” Hi s p o i nt, p r e s uma b l y, i s tha t§ 5 / 1 2
- 1 6 ( d) do es not mak e th e us e o r thr ea te ne d us e o ff o r ce a s ta tu
t ory elem en t, bu t th is focus on w ha t is ne cess ary for a cri m e t o f allwithi n the re si du alcl ause i s m i sgui ded because A pp l i cati on N ote 1( B)( i i i ) expl i ci tl y e num er ate s “s exua l abus e o fa min o r ” as a c r i m e o fv i o l en ce . And an enum er ate d offense a l ways i s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence f or pu rpos es of§ 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) , wh ethero r not the use or t h re at ofphysi calf or ce i s a n el em ent o fthe offense. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Angi ano , 6 0 2 F. 3d 828, 829 (7th Cir. ), cert. denied , 130 S. C t. 34 34 (2 0 1 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Va sq uez-Abarca , 334 F.3d 587, 588-89 (7th C ir. 2003). So the ques tio n i s whether agg ra vate d cri m i nal se xual ab us e, a s defi ne d b y s ubs ec ti o n ( d) o f § 5/ 12
- 16 , c o nsti tutes “ sexualabuse o fa m i nor . ” The o ffense proscr ibes any “act of sexual penetr ati on or sexual c on du ct” w i th a vi cti m wh o i s a t l eas t 1 3 y ea rs o l d, i s no m or e than 16 y ea r s o l d, a nd is a t l ea st5 y ea r s y o ung ertha n the defe nd ant. “Both ‘ sexualco nd uct’ and ‘ sexualpenetr ati on’ desc ribe intenti onalact s o fa sexualnatur e. ” P eople v. Kol t on , 84 8 N .E. 2d 950, 95 9 ( I l l
. 20 06)
. I n the case o f “se xual penetr ati on, ” the ac t e ncom pa ss es “a ny co ntact, ho w ever sl i g ht, b etwee n the s ex o r g ano r a nus o fo neN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 11 perso n by an o bj ect, the s ex o rgan, m outh o r anus of an o th e r p e r s o n, o r a n y i n t r u s i o n, h o we v e r s l i g h t, o fa ny part ofthe body ofo ne per son oro fany ani m alo r obj ect i nt o the s e x o r g a n o r a nu s o fano th e r p e r s o n. ” 7 2 0 I LCS 5/ 12
- 12 ( f )
. As fo r “ se xua l c o nduc t, ” th e ac t i nc lud es “a ny i nt en ti o na l o r kno wi ngtouchi ngo r f o ndl i ngb y the vi cti m o r the accused, ei therdi re ctl y o r thro ugh cl othi ng, o fthe s ex orga ns , a nus o r b r ea sto fthe v i ct i m o r the acc us ed , or an y pa rt of th e bod y of a ch ild u nd er 13 years ofag e, o r an y tr an sfero r tr ansm i ssi on o fse m en by the a ccused upon any part ofthe cl othe d oruncl othe d b o d y o fth e v i c t i m, f

ort hepu rpos eof

s exual g ratif

i ca t i on or arousal ofthe vi cti m o r the a ccused. ” Id. § 5/ 12- 12( e) ( em phasi s a dd ed). W hen c om m i tte d against a te enage r by a per son w ho i s a t l ea st 5 y ea rs o l der, bo th act s o f “s ex u al p en et ra tio n ” a n d ac ts of “s ex u al c on d u c t” fall s q u a r e l y w i th i n th e “ o r di na r y, c o n t e mp o r a r y, a n d c o mm on m ea n in g” of th e p h ra se “s ex u al a b u se of a m in or .” SeeU nite d State s v. M arti nez-Carill o , 250 F. 3d 1101 , 11 04- 05 (7th C ir. 2001). A ll v iolations of § 5/12-16(d), then , are cr i m es o fv i o l en ce f o r purpo se s o f§ 2 L1. 2(b) ( 1) ( A)( i i ) , a nd so the di str i ct c ourtwas cor re ct t o apply the 1 6-le vel i ncre ase to Ocam po. Ocam po al so tak es i ssue w i th the suppos ed dear th o f em p iric al d at a t o ju st ify th e “ h ar sh ” 1 6-le ve l inc re as e if an al i en i s r em ove d aftercom m itt ing a cr i m e o fvi ol ence. Ci ti ng j ournalar ti cl es and cri ti calo pini ons by dist ri ct c ourt s, he insi sts thatthe “arbi tr ar i n es s” of § 2 L1. 2( b) ( 1)(A ) ( i i ) r enders hi s s entence unrea sonab l e. Buta di st r i ctc o ur t ne ed note ve n co nsid er th e ar g um en t
“ th a t a g u i d e l i n e i s u n wo r th y o f a p p l i c a t i o n i n a ny case12 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 because i t was pro m ulg at ed w i thout adequate del iber ati on. ” U nite d State s v. A guila r- H u er ta , 57 6 F
. 3d 365, 36 7- 68 (7t h C ir.), cert. denied sub no m . Sha reef v. U nited Sta tes , 13 0 S
. Ct
. 8 11 ( 20 09 )
. And the di st r i ct co ur t’ s th o ug ht ful explan ati on o fOcam po’ s s entence puts t o re st any s ugge st ion th a t t h e g u id elin e p ro d u c ed an u n re as on ab le ou tc om e in h is c as e. SeeU nite d State s v. M oreno-Pad il la , 60 2 F
. 3d 80 2, 8 13
- 14 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) , c e r t . d enied , 13 1 S
. Ct. 89 7 (2011). H av i ngr es o l ve d the se pr el i m i na r y matt er s, we turn to th e q u es tio n atth e h ea rtof th es e a p p ea ls: W h at ev identi ar y s how i ng m ust a de fendant m ake befor e a d istri ct cou rt i s obli ged to consid er his r eq ue st for a l ower s enten c e to acco unt f orthe abse nce o fa f ast
- tr ack pr o g r am i n tha t j udi ci aldi st r i ct ? At the tim e the se de fen d an ts w ere sen ten ced , of cou rse, th e d istrict cou rts w ere not perm i tte d to consi der the absence o fa f ast
- tr ack p rogram i n cra fting a sente nc e un d er 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a). Se eU ni t ed St at e s v. Gal i ci a- Card e nas , 44 3 F
. 3d 553, 55 5 (7th C ir. 2006); U nited Sta t e s v . M a rtinez -M a rtinez , 44 2 F
. 3d 53 9, 5 43 ( 7th Ci r . 2 006). It ’ s no w cl ea r tha t, t o the co nt r ary, d is tr i ctj udg es may ta k e i nt o a cc o unta ny s en tenci ng di spari ty ar i si ng fro m the abse nce o fa f ast -track p ro gr am . R eyes-H erna nd ez , 62 4 F
. 3d a t 417. But R eyesH ernan dez also em p ha sizes tha t, before a district cou rt w i l l be obl i gat ed to ev alu ate wh ethera l ower s entence i s w a r r a n t e d b y t h e ab s e n c e o fa f a s t
- t r a c kp r o g r a m, the defend an t m ust fi rs t e stabl i sh thathe woul d “have b ee n eligib le fo r f a s t-t ra c k s ta tu s h ad it be en av aila b le a nd s ho w that h e wo ul d h a v e i n f a c tp ur s ue d the o pti on. ” Id. at42 0. Even be f or e Rey e s - Herna nd ez we hadN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 13

m ade th e sa m e po i nti n U nite d State s v. O lm eda-Ga rc ia , 61 3 F
. 3d 72 1, 7 24( 7th C i r . 2 01 0) , whi che xpl ains tha t a defen dant w ho a l l ud es t o the be nefi ts avai l abl e in f ast
- tr ack d ist ric ts bu t n ev er trie s “ to d em o n s t ra te th at h e w ou ld be e l i gibl e” i n one oftho se dist ri cts cannot com pla i n on ap p ea l if th e s e n t e n c in g c ou rtign or es th is a rg u m en t in m itig at ion
. Seeals o U nite d S tate s v. A rrel ucea-Zam udio , 58 1 F.3 d 1 42 , 1 56 -57(3 d C ir. 20 09 ) (“T o jus tify a re as on ab le var i anc e b y the di str i ct c ourt, a defe nd ant m ust s how at the o utsetthathe woul d quali fy forf ast
- tr ack dis p os iti on in a fas t-t ra c k d ist ric t.” ); U nited Sta tes v. Jim énez -B eltre, 440 F. 3d 514, 51 9 ( 1stCi r. 20 06) ( en banc) (h old i ng tha t di st r i ctc o ur t ne ed no t r es po nd t o f as t- tr ac ka r g um en t unl es s defen dan t pr o vi des a f ac tu alb asi s “fo r a ss es sing t h e ext en t of th e d ispa riti es”). T his requ irem en t of a fou n d at ion for a cla im of fas t-t ra c k d isp ar ity sim p ly re cogni zes th at every defendant w ho a sse rt s that hi s o r her perso nal ci rcum sta nces w ar ra nt l eni ency i s co m pel l ed to su p p ly a fac tu al p re d ica te for t h e co n te n tio n . See, e .g ., U nited Sta tes v. G rob er, 6 24 F
. 3d 59 2, 5 99 ( 3d Cir. 20 10 ); U nite d State s v. Fel ix , 56 1 F. 3d 1036, 1044 (9th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Q ui ñon e s -M e di na , 553 F. 3d 19, 22 ( 1st C ir. 20 09 ); U nite d State s v. Kel et a , 5 5 2 F
. 3 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 6 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 00 9); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i az , 53 3 F
. 3d 574, 57 8 ( 7th C i r . 2 00 8); U nite d State s v. Tahz ib , 5 1 3 F
. 3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. M cG ee, 4 94 F. 3d 551, 55 7- 58 ( 6 t h C ir. 20 07 ); U nite d State s v. A cost a , 4 74 F
. 3 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 03- 04 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); U nited St at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 42 9 F
. 3d 673, 679 (7th C ir. 2005). To r ec ei ve l en i en cyi n anyf as t- tr ac kdi st r i ct, a de fen dan t m ust, a s a s t a r t i ngp o i nt, p r o mpt l y p l e a d gui l t y, a g r e e to14 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 a fa c tu al b as is for th e o ffen se , a n d w a ive h is rig h ts to file pretr i alm oti ons, to appeal, and to se ek postco nvi cti on r elie f u n d er § 22 55
. See M em oran d um from the U
. S. A tto r ne y Ge ne r alt o U. S
. Att o r ne y s ( S ept . 2 2, 2 003), ava il able at h t t p : / / ww w. j u s t i c e . g o v / a g / r e a di ng r o o m/ ag -09 22 03 .p d f
. See a lso R eyes-H erna nd ez , 62 4 F
. 3d at 412; O lm eda-Ga rc ia , 6 1 3 F
. 3 d a t7 2 4
. Be y o nd the s e u ni v e rs al re q u ire m en ts , ho w ev er , th e U n ite d S ta te s A tt or n ey s in the j ud i ci aldi str i cts that offerf ast -tr ack sente nci ng have no t ado pte d uni f o r m e l i g ibi l i tyc r i te r i a. The S en te nc i ng Commi s s i o n ha s t a k e n the po s i t i o n that dist ri ct c o ur t s s ho ul d n o tr e du c e the s e nt e nc e s o fde fendants who par ti ci pat e i n f as t- tr ac kpr o g r ams b y more th anthe equi va l en t of 4 o ffen se l ev el s, U. S
. S
. G. § 5 K3. 1, b ut th e g u id elin es d o n otca ta log u e t h e e ligib ility cr ite ria em ployed i n the 16 f ast
- tr ack prog ra m s. A co m pil ati on o ftho se c riteri a was pr epa r ed bythe Uni te d S ta te s an d su bm i tt ed as a s en te nc i nge xhibi t i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e drano- D uran , 3 86 F. S upp. 2 d 9 43 ( N
. D. I l l
. 2 00 5) , a nd th at ti m ewo r n do cument

— w hi ch m ay orm ay not sti ll be a ccurat e, and w hi ch does not i ncl ud e a ny i nfo rm at i o n ab o u tth e t wo n e we s tp r o g r a ms

— i s fre quentl y c i ted i n dist i ngui shi ng between the f ast
- tr ack dist ri cts. S ee Fas tTrackDis posi ti ons Dist ri ct-by- Distri ct Rel ati ng to I l l ega l R ee n tr y C as es , r epr i nt e d i n 21 F ED . S EN T ’ G R EP . 3 3 9 (2 0 09). Wh a tth e d o c u me n ts h o ws i s th a t, a s o f2 0 0 5 , s o me dist ri cts did offera re du cti on e quiva l ent of 4 offense l eve l s t o al l defendants wh o parti ci pated i n a f ast
- tr ack prog ra m . But other dist ri cts, l i ke the Di str i ct o fI daho, the Di str i ct o fN ebr ask a, and the So uthern Dist ri ct o f Texas, o fferan e l i gibl e defendant at m osta re du cti onN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 15 of 2 lev els ; th e W es te rn D ist ric t o f T ex as offe rs on ly 1 lev el. Id. a t 3 4 4 , 3 4 7
. And s t i l l o the r di s t r i c t s e mpl o y nota departure

-base d progr am bu t a char ge-bar gai n prog ra m i n wh i c h th e d e fe n d a n tp l e a d s g u i l t y, ty p i c a l l y t o t wo coun ts ofi m properentr y b y a n al i en, 8 U
. S. C. § 1 325, and rec eiv es a fi xed sente nce i n re turn. I n m osto fthes e dist ri cts, an e l i gibl e defendant’s se ntence d ep ends on w hetherhe i s s ubj ect to a 1 6- l evel i ncre ase under § 2L1
. 2(b) ( 1) ( A); i fs o , he wi l l rec eive a t er m o f3 0 m o nths n o m at te r w h at h i s s en te n c in g ra n ge ot h er w ise w ou ld h av e b ee n . Id. a t 34 6, 34 7- 48. I n additi on t o these var i ati o ns i n the ty pes o fpr o g r ams o ffer ed, a t l ea sto ne di s t r i c tc o nd i t i o ne d el igib il ityf ori ts f ast
- tr ack prog ra m o n the defend an t’s cri m i nal

- hi sto rycat ego ry, wh i l e m ost o th e r s v a r i e d th e a v a i l a b l e s e n t e n c e r e d u c t i o n a c c o r d i ng to the defendant’s o ffense l eve l under § 2L1. 2. W hether the o ffense of c on victi on was a re peat v i ol ati on o f§ 1326 , w hetherthe defe nd ant was o n s u p ervi sed r el eas e a t the t i m e o fthe curr ent o ffense, and the age and sev er i ty ofthe defe nd ant’s ear l i ercr i m es ar e typi calf acto rs that can affect f ast
- tr ack el i gibi l i ty. W e can easil y d ispose of M an d ujano’s an d Ram irez’s appeal s b ec au se nei thero ne m ade an e ff or t t o show that he m et the m i ni m um el i gibility cri ter i a f orf ast
- tr ack sente nci ng, m uch l ess thathe woul d have qualified fo r one of th e 16 fast-track p rogram s. I n fact, M an d ujano’s l awy erc o nc ede d tha t hi s cl i en t ha d no t fulfi l l ed th e r equi r ement s th atwoul d ha ve s er ve d a s th e i nduc ement f orthe gov er n m ent’ s o ffero ff ast
- tr ack re l i ef
. A s f or R am ire z, in h is s en te n c in g m em or an d u m h e m e r ely specul ate d that he “ m ay ha ve b een abl e to r ec ei ve the16 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 benefi t o fa f ast
- tr ack prog ra m ” i f s entence d i n another dist ri ct. H e di d not t ryto es tabl i sh a f actualpre dica te f orthati nconclu si ve guess , norhad he waiv ed hi s r i ghts to fi l e pr etr i al m oti ons, to fi l e a di re ct a pp eal, o r to att ack hi s co nv i ct i o n un der § 2 25 5. And when th e g o ve r nm en t re sponded byca st in g doubt on Ram i re z’ s e l i gibi l i ty f or f as t-tr ack sente nci ng, Ram i re z f ai l ed to co ntestthat pr o po si ti o n, fi l i ngno wri tt enrepl y a nd r emai ni ng si len t on the topi c athi s s entenci ng hea ring. I n shor t, M an d ujano’s an d Ram irez’s “d ispa rity” argum en ts w ere i l l usor y, and i l l usor y a rgum ents do not re quir e a r esponse f ro m the dist ri ct c ourt . Oca m po ’ s appe ali s tr i ck i er . F o r o ne thi ng, the g o ve r nm ent has co nfe sse d e rror a nd advoca tes a re m and fo r resen ten cing in li gh t of R eyes-H erna nd ez . But the gov er n m en t’s c on fes sio n is no t bin d in g onu s, see U nited Sta tes v. Cr uz , 595 F.3d 74 4, 74 5 (7 th C ir.), ce r t . de nied , 1 30 S
. Ct. 34 37(20 10 ); U nited St at e s v. Ande rs on , 54 7 F
. 3d 831, 83 3 (7t h C ir. 2 0 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. D em a ree, 45 9 F
. 3d 791, 793 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , and si nce the thr esho l d quali fi cati on predates R eyes-H erna nd ez , se e O lm eda-Ga rc ia , 613 F
. 3d at 724, we cannot und er sta nd the gov er nm en t’s unw i l l i ngne ss t o defen d the o ut co m e i t so ug hta nd wonfr o m the di st r i ctc o ur t. On th e o th erha nd , u nlik e M an duj an o a nd R am ire z, O c am p o a t le as t m ad e a m in im al e ffor t t o p o siti o n h i m se l fl i k e a defen dan t i n a f as t- tr ac kdi stric t. But d id h e g o fa r en ou gh ? W e h av e y et to ex p lore ex ac tly w h at a d efe n d an t n ee d s t o d o t o sh ow th at h e is si m i l ar l y s i tuate d to an e l i gibl e defendant in a f ast
- tr ack di st r i ct . B efo r e ar g um en t we puttha t que st i o n t o the parti es and aske d them to fi l e s up ple m entalst ate m ents m aki ng the i r bestcas e.N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 17 A s i t turns o ut, Ocam po a n d t h e g ove rnm ent a re m ate
ri al l y a t odd s. O cam po em phasi zes thathe pl eaded gui l ty at the fi rs t o p p ortuni ty afterar ra i gnm ent a nd ag re ed to the f actualbas i s pro ffer ed by the gov er nm ent. H e a l so to ut s th athe a tt ac he d t o hi s sen te nc i ngmem o r an dum a w a ive r of h is rig h ts to file p re tr ial m ot ion s, ap p ea l his sente nce, and m ount a c olla ter alat tacko n hi s co nvi cti on so l ong as he r ecei ved “a sente nce co m m ensu rate w i th the s entence s r ecei ved by defe nd ants in ‘ f ast
- tr ack’ j uri sdi ct i o ns . ” Thus , he i ns i st s, he “ did ev er y th i ngtha t he r ea s o n a b l y c o u l d b e e x p e c t e d t o d o t o e s t a b l i s h th a the w as si m i l ar l y s i tuate d to defe nd ants i n Fas t- Trackdi str i cts. ” As f oro ur quest i on how a s entencing j ud ge sh oul d quantify a r educti on i n the defe nd ant’ s s entence gi ven the si gni fi cant v ar i at ions am ong the f ast
- tr ack pr o g r a ms , O c a mpo d u c k s th e ma t t e r e n t i r e l y, i n s i s ti ng that thi s co urt needn’tbo therweighin g in and i nstea d shoul d j ust rem and the ca se to l et the di str i ct c ourtdeci de th e que st i o n i n the fi r sti ns ta nc e. B ut th ati s no answ er to the questi on w e posed; the ver y poi n t o f d ir ec tingfur th erb r i efi ngwas t o a ss i stus i n g i ving gui dance to the dist ri ct c ourt s. The go ver nm ent, m eanw hi l e, m ai nt ains that the defendant m ust unconditi onal l y w ai ve hi s r i ghts

— and m ust do s o a t the t i m e he pl ea ds g ui l ty . And the g o ve r nm en t i ns i st s t ha t th e defen dan t m us t m ak e a “r i g o r o us showing” not onl y that he gene ra llyi s e l i gibl e forf ast
tr ac k sen te n c in g bu t also th at “h e m ee ts all t h e c rit er ia for a sp e c i f ic fa st -tr ac k p ro gr am cu rre n tly em p loy ed in anothe r dist ri ct. ” Because it i s the defendant’s burden to e st ab l i sha n a r g um en t i n mi ti g at i o n, the g o ve r n-18 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689

m en t con tinu es, “h e can not i n v o k e t his basis for a var i ance unl ess he c an es tabl i sh thatdefendan ts w i th c om p ar ab le c rim in al h ist or ies an d ba c kg ro u n d s d o in fac t re c eiv e s u c h red u c ed se n te n c es in o th er d ist ric ts .” A nd , fi nal l y, the gov er nm ent pr opose s that the di st ri ct cou rt ough t to de term in e the de gree of th e d efend an t’s sente nce re du cti on, i f any, w i th re fer ence to w h ate ver “a r g um en ts bas ed o n b o thpo l i cya nd f ac ts ” th atthe gov er nm ent has p u t for th i n that parti cul arcas e. Those ar g um en ts , the g o ver nm en t su g g es ts , c o ul d i nc l ude the fac t t h at ea c h d ist ric t’s fas t-t ra c k p ro gr am is s p e c ifica lly “tai l or ed to al l ow effi ci ent pr ose cuti ons” i n that dist ri ct, as we l l a s th e f a c tth a tth e g o v e r n me n tr e c e i v e s s u bs ta nti al l y l ess bene fi t fro m a defe nd ant who shows onl y that he w ould have part i ci pated i n a f ast
- tr ack prog ra m had i t be en av ai l abl e. W e c o nc l ud e tha t the g o v e r nme nt ha s the b e t t er r esp on se . Th e s h ow in g t h at O c am p o h as p ro p os ed w ou ld not est abl i sh si m i l ar i ty to an el i gibl e defe nd ant i n a fasttr ack d i str i ct. Fi rs t, Ocam po co ntends thati t’ s e nough to su bmi t a wa iver ofhi s r i g ht s co ndi ti o ne d o n r ec ei ving w ha t h e d eem s t o be “ a s entence co m m ensura te w i th the sen tence s r ecei ved by defe nd ants i n ‘ f ast
- tr ack’ j uri sdict i ons. ” But th at m eani ngl ess co nd i ti on a m ounts to an unenfor c eabl e wai ver ; the sente nci ng be nefi ts aff or ded d efendants in fa st- tr ack dis tr i cts var y w i del y, so eve n i fthe dist ri ct c ourthad gi ven Ocam po a bre ak to ac c ou n t fo r a p er c eiv ed fas t-t ra c k d isp ar ity , Oc am p o st ill coul d argue thath is c ondit i onalappealwaive r did not beco m e op er ati ve because the sente nce he re cei ved w asn’ t “ com m ensura te” with s entence s in f ast
- tr ackN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 19 dist ri cts. A nd then ther e i s a l w ays t h e questi on wh ether a un il at e ral w aiver that w as no t m ad e as p art of a ple a a gr eem ent ordi scusse d du ring the pl ea col l oquy, seeF ED . R. C RIM . P. 11(b) ( 1) ( N ) , can e ve r be b i nd i ng, cf. U nited Sta tes v. Sura , 51 1 F
. 3d 65 4, 66 1- 63 ( 7th Cir. 2007 ) ( hol ding that sente nci ng co urt p lai nl y e rr ed by ne g l ec tingt o i nf o r m de fen dan t dur i ngpl ea c o l l o quy th at his p lea agree m en t includ ed ap p eal w aiver). So Oc a mpo ’ s o ffe r t o r e l i nqui s h hi s r i g ht s r i ng s ho l l o w. N ot onl y that, but a defenda n t in a f ast
- tr ack dist ri ct m ust giv e u p th os e rig h ts im m ed iat ely w h en h e e n t e r s h is g ui l ty pl ea, no t a co upl e m o nths do wn th e r oad at se nte n c in g, like O c am p o. A d efe n d an t w h o w an ts to cla im pari ty w i th an el i gibl e defendant i n a f ast
- tr ack distri ct mu s tb e p r e p a r e d t o a c c e p tth e d e t r i m e n t s th a tc o me w i th thatst atus. Th e s e c o nd qua r r e l we h a v e wi th Oc a mpo ’ s r e s po nse has t o do w i th hi s co ntenti on t h at a defendant m ust show onl y that he m eet s th e un i ver salr equi re m ents f or f ast
- tr ack el i gibi l i ty w i thout re gar d to how the prog ra m is e m p loy ed in a n y p ar tic u lar j u d icia l d ist r i c t. In fa c t, a defe nd ant who ignor es the addi t i onal cr i ter i a that di ffer bet wee n pr o g r ams b y de fi ni ti o n f al l s sh o r t o fs ho wi ng th athe i s si m i l ar l y s i tu at ed to a n e l i g ibl e defen dan t i n a ny o fthe f as t- tr ac kdi st r icts. And

— a s we h o pe w e’ ve dri ven ho m e bynow

— i fthe de fen dan t can’t show that he actual l y would be el i gibl e to re c eive a f ast
tr ac k b en efitin a t le as t o n e jud icia l d ist ric t, t h e n h is “dis pari ty” ar gum ent i s i l l usor y. Fi nal l y, al though the go ver nm ent has sugg est ed re aso n ab le c on sid er at ion s fo r a s en te n c i n g jud ge to ke ep in20 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689

m i nd wh en tr yi ng to ev alu at e an d quantify a cl ai m o f “di s pa r i t y, ” we thinktha tthe g o v e r nme nt ’ s p o s i ti on om its w h at is p r o b a b l y th e m os t u se fu l info rm at ion : a thor ough a ccount ofthe l i kel y b en efi t in each dist ri ct w here the defe nd ant would be el i gibl e fora f ast
- tr ack sente nce, as wellas a c an did as ses sm ent o fthe num ber o f f a s t
- t r a c k pr o g r a ms f o r whi c h he would notbe eligibl e. Thi s i nfor m at i o n i s es se nt i alf o r a s en te nc i ng cour t t o appreci ate the exte nt of t h e di spari ty, i fany, that wo u l d r e s u l t i f th e d e fe n d a n t wa s n o t g i v e n a s en te n c in g b re ak . In th is c as e, for ex am p le, O c am p o w ou ld have been el i gibl e fora bre ak i n a few of the f ast
- tr ack d ist ric ts , bu t t h e 4 0-m on th te r m h e re c eiv ed falls square l y withi n the “r educed” i m pri sonm en t range for f ast
- t r a c kde fe nd a nt s i n a tl e a s t2 5 p e r c e nto fthe pro gr am s. I n thr ee ofthes e di str i cts

— the Di str i ct o fI daho, the Di str i ct o fN ebr ask a, and the So uthern Dist ri ct o f Texas

— Ocam po co uld have r ec eiv ed atm osta 2- l eve l decrea se, wh i ch w oul d have pro du ced a gui del i nes ra nge o f33 to 41 m onths; in the W est er n Dis tr i ct o fTexas, m eanw hi l e, he c oul d have r ecei ved onlya 1- l eve l de c r e a s e , r e s ul t i ng i n a r a ng e o f3 7t o 4 6 mo nths
. Oc a mpo s ho ul d hav e d i s c l o s e d thi s i nfo rm ati on t o the di str i ct cour t r athe r tha n s pec ul at i ng

— wro ng l y, a s i t tu r ns o ut

— th at h e w ou l d h av e g ot te n a 4-le ve l d ec re as e in eve ryl asto ne o fthe f ast
- tr ack dist ri cts. So t o sum m ar i ze, a defe nd ant cl ai m i ng ent i tl em ent t o a l ower s entence bec ause ofa perce i ved f ast
- tr ack “dis

pari ty” m u st pro m ptl y pl ead gui l ty, ag re e t o the f actual ba si s pr o ff ered bythe g o ve r nm en t, e xe cut e ane nf o r ce ab l e wai ve r o fs pec i fi c r i g ht s be f o re or dur i ngtheN os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 21 ple a collo quy, es tabl i sh thathe woul d rec ei ve a f ast
- tr ack se nt en ce i n a t l easto ne di st r i cto ffer i ngthe pr o g r am, a nd su bmi t a th o r o ug h a ccount o fthe l i k ely i m pr i so nm en t ra nge in the dist ri cts w here he is eligibl e, as wellas a candid asse ss m ent o fthe num bero fpro gr am s f orwh i ch he would notqual i fy. U nl ess the defe nd ant co m pli es w i th ea ch ofthes e s teps, the sente nci ng cou rt w i l l be f re e t o rej ec t th e a rgum ent without co m m ent. A nd gi ven these pre condi ti ons to a co l or ab le cl ai m o ff ast
- tr ack dispar ity , we r ej ect the g ove rnm ent’ s co nfe ssi on o fer ro r i n Ocam po’ s a pp eal . T h e co nfe ssi on i s di ffi cul t t o r ec o nc i l e wi th R eyes-H erna nd ez a nd O lm eda -Ga rc ia

— an d harderst i l l to r eco nci l e with the gov er n m ent’ s s up ple

m entalst ate m ent, wh i ch pers uasi vel y pr op ose s that a d efe n d a n t c an sh ow h e is sim ilar ly sit u at ed to an eligib le defe nd ant in a f ast
- tr ack dist ri ct o nl y b y o ffer i ng an e nfo r c e a b l e wa i v e r o fh i s r i g ht s a tthe ti me he p l e a ds gui l ty and establ i shi ng tha t he would be el i gibl e fora f ast
tr ack benefi t in at l eas t o ne o therdi strict thato ffer s s uch a pro gr am . Ocam po di d nei ther
. A nd f orthatr eas on th e di st r i ctc o ur t d id notc o m m i t er r o r b y s ay i ng not h in g in re sponse to hi s i l l usor y f ast
- tr ack ar gum ent. See R eyes-H erna nd ez , 6 2 4 F .3d at42 0; O lm eda-Ga rc ia , 61 3 F.3 d at72 4; A rrel ucea-Zam udio , 58 1 F
. 3d at 156- 57. Th i s c o nc l us i o n i s n o ta l t e r e d b y the f a c ttha t R ey e sHerna nd ez wa s de c i de d a ft e r Oc a mpo was s e nt e nc e d. R eyes-H erna nd ez was ar g ue d i n Nov embe r 2 00 9, f o ur m o nths befo r e Oca m po f i l ed hi s s en te nc i ngmem o r an dum a nd s e v e n mon ths b e f o r e h e wa s s e ntenc e d. I nd e e d, Oca m po a nt i ci pat ed th e wi nni nga r g um en t i n R eyesHerna nd ez wh en he urge d the di str i ct c ou rt to aba nd on22 N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689
o urde ci si o ns i n G a licia -C a rden a s a nd M a rtinez -M a rtinez i n l i g hto fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s ho l di ngi n Ki mb r o u g h v
. U nited Sta tes , 5 52 U. S
. 8 5 (2007)
. I n s uppo r t he c i te d the Thi r d Ci r cui t’ s dec i si o n in A rrel ucea-Zam udio , wh i ch, l i ke R eyes-H erna nd ez , r eq ui r es a de fen dan t to s ho w tha t he w oul d be e l i gibl e fora benefi t in a f ast
- tr ack dist ri ct b efo re h e c an ex p ec t a se n te n c i n g c ou rtto res p on d to h is dispar ity ar gum ent. 58 1 F
. 3d at 156- 57. A nd hi s s ubm i ssi on o fa f orm w aiv er of hi s r i ghts f ro m the Feder alDefender’ s websi te shows he kne w h e needed to e stabl i sh that he actual l y would have bee n el i gibl e forfas t-t rack sente nci ng. A defendant w ho u rged the dist ri ct c ourtto ado pt th e r ea so ni ngtha t ev en tu al l y pr ev ai l ed i n R eyesHerna nd ez does n’tde se rve a “do- ove r” j ust be cause he neg l ect ed to f ol l ow through on hi s o w n ar gum ent. Va zquez-Pita , 411 F. A p p ’x at89 1; M o ran t-Jo nes , 411 F. A pp ’ x at 887; Abasta-Ruiz , 40 9 F. A pp ’ x a t9 5 0
. Oc a mpo was n’ t c au g hto ffg ua r d b y thi s th r es ho l d qua l i fi ca ti o n; i t’ s j ust that hi s a tte m pt to car ryhi s bur den f el l f arsho rt . H avi ng sa i d w hat w e have sai d, w e r eco gni ze that es ta b lish in g t h at a d efe n d an t in th is c irc u it w ou ld ha ve received a f ast-track ben efi t in a district tha t offers one can be a l ittl e com p li cate d
. W e com m en d Oc am p o’s l aw yer f or tak i ng seve ra l posi ti ve ste ps, w i th an assi st from the Fed eral Defen d er’s he lpful w ebsite, tow ard es tabl i sh i nghi s cl i en t’ s el i gibil ity f o r the pr o g r am. To c u tth r o u g h a l l th e mu s s a n d fu s s i n fu t u r e c a s e s , we ur g e t h e U
. S. A ttorn eys’ offices in th is ci rcu it to w ork w i th defendants se eking f ast
- tr ack consi derat i on a nd to w i l l i ngl y s ti pu l ate to se ntenci ng j u d ges thatdefendants ar e e l i gibl e i fthatappears to be the c ase .N os. 09
- 3932, 10
- 2190 & 10
- 2689 23 To wrap up , we concl ud e th at the f ast
- tr ack ar gum ents m a d e b y a l l th r e e o f th e s e d e fe n d a n t s we r e i l l u so r y a nd coul d be pass ed ove r i n si l ence. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM ea c h of th eir se n te n c es ; Ra m ire z’s se n te n c e, h ow ev er , i s M OD IF IE D to cl ar i fy that hi s par ti ci pati on i n the I nm ate Fi nanci alResponsibi l i ty Pro gr am i s v ol untary .

7- 20- 11