A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

t h i s a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is O r derand J udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of t he ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e9,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J UAN T E L L E Z - AC OS T A, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 4301 ( D . C . N o. 2: 05- cr - 00298) ( D . U t ah)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erpl eadi ng gui l t yt o i l l egal r e- entryfol l ow i ng r emoval fr om t he U ni t ed S t at es, see 8 U . S . C . § 1 32 6, Juan T el l ez-A cost a w as sent enced t o 4 6 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent, t he low end of the app l i cable G uidel i nes range. H e no w app eal s, cl ai m i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed byfai l i ng t o cons i ders ent ence di s par i t i esI n a “fas t - t r ack” pr ogr am, “defendant s acc us ed of c er t ai n i m m i gr at i on 1 o ffe n se s . . . p lea d g u iltye a rlyin th e p ro c e ss a n d w a iv e th e ir rig h ts to file c e rta in m ot i ons and t o appea l , i n excha nge fora s hor t ers ent ence . T he s hor t ers ent ence [i ] s acc om pl i s hed ei t herbychar ge- bar gai ni ng orbypr om i s i ng t o r ecomm end a dow nw ar d departur e ats ent enci ng. ” U ni t ed St at es v. M or al es - C hai r es , 430 F. 3d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). - 2 - c a u s e d b y t h e u s e o f s o - c a l l e d “ fa s t - tr a c k ” p r o g r a m s i n o th e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . We 1 co n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t err and affirm M r. T ell ez -A co sta’s s ent ence . F o ll o w ing h is gu il typ lea, M r. T ell ez -A co sta fil ed a m o ti o n fo r a d o w n w ard departur e. C i t i ng s t at i s t i cs publ i s hed byt he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, t he mot i on ar gued thatt he D i s tr i ctof U t ah both i m pos es s i gni fi cant l yhi ghers ent ence s and gr ant s s ubs t ant i al l yfew erdow nw ar d departur es fori m m i gr at i on vi ol at i ons t han di s tr i ct s t hatus e fa s t - tr ack pr ogr ams. M r . T el l ezA c o s ta a s k e d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to c o rr e c t th is d is p a ri ty. A t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , the d istri ct co u rtn o ted M r. T ell ez -A co sta’s a rg u m e n t b u t rejec ted it: O n the i ssu e of fa st tr ac k sen tenc ing d ispa ri ty , w h ile th e C o u rt acknow l edges t he numer i cal di s par i tycr eat ed b etw een di s tr i ct s w hi ch empl oyt he s o- cal l ed fa s t - tr ack pr ogr am for i l l egal r eentrycas es and th o se w h ich d o n o t, th is is n o t a m a tter a p p ro p ria tely b e fo re th is C o u rt. T h is C o u r t d e c li n e s to su a sp o n te im p o se a fa st-tra c k p ro g ra m in th is d istrict , beli eving t hat i n d oing so i tw ou l d ir on i cal l ycreat e dis pari ty i n and of i t s el f. Fur t her , t he C our tcannoti gnor e the fa ctthatthe vas t m aj or i tyof d i s t r i c t s i n t h e fe d e r a l cour t s y s t e m do n o th a v e s u c h a p r o g r a m. To a ttem p t to a c c o u n t fo r th e fa st-tra c k p ro g ra m , w h ich is in p lac e in o n ly appr oxi m at el y15 per centof di s tr i ct s , w ou ld u n derm i ne the fe der al s ent enci ng s y s t em, w hi ch i s uni form i tyam o n g s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed- 3 -

d efen d an ts. F o r thes e re aso n s, the C o u rtd ec li n es to d ep art do w n w ard on t his basi s. T r . of Sent enci ng at11, R . V ol . I I . M r . T el l ez- A cos t a t i m el yappea l ed, cl ai m i ng th a t “a n yse n ten c e fa ili n g to c o n sid e r th e se d isp a rities sh o u ld b e in h e re n tly unr eas onabl e. ” In r eview i ng t he reasonab l eness of a sen t ence, w e revi ew l egal quest i on s de novo and fa ctual ques t i ons forcl earerr or . U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A se n ten c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e is p r e s u m p t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e , a l t h o u g h t h e p r e s u m p t i o n m a y b e r e b u t t e d b y a sh o w ing “tha t th e se n tenc e is u n rea so n ab le w h en v iew ed ag ains t th e o ther fac tors del i neat ed i n [18 U . S. C . ] § 3553( a) . ” I d. at1054. B eca us e M r . T el l ez- A cos t a’ s s ent ence w as w i thi n the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange, w e pr es um e thati tw as r eas onabl e unl es s he has m ethi s bur den of s how i ng ot herw i s e. W e conc l ude thathe has notdone s o. I n the r ece ntcas e of U ni t ed S tat es v . M o rales-C h aires, w e w ere fa ce d w ith a c lai m n ea rl yiden ti ca l t o M r. T el l ez- A cos t a’ s . See 430 F. 3d 1124. T he defendanti n M or al es - C hai r es ar gued fora dow nw ar d departur e bec aus e of “ the di s par i t i es betw een s ent ence s i m pos ed in d istri cts w h ere a ‘fast-trac k ’ pro g ram ex ist s fo r ali en s ac cu sed o f il lega l r ee n try and i n di s t r i ct s , l i ke C ol or ado, w her e no s uch ‘ fas t - tr ack’ pr ogr am exi s t s . ” I d. at 1 1 2 6 . T h e d istric t co u rt rejec ted h is a rg u m e n t, “fin d in g th a t ‘fo r th e C o u rt to departon t hi s bas i s i s i n es s ence a vi ol at i on of the doctr i ne of s epar at i on ofS e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) d ire c ts s e n ten c in g c o u rts to c o n sid e r “ th e n e e d to a v o id 2 unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defendant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have b e e n fo u n d g u ilty o f

s im ila r c o n d u c t.” - 4 - p o w e rs b e c a u se o f

in ter fe re n c e w ith a p ro se c u to r’s e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n in char gi ng and pl ea ba r gai ni ng. ’ ” I d. O n appea l , w e conc l uded that“w e nee d not r es ol ve w hethers ent enci ng di s par i t i es caus ed bythe exi s t ence of fa s t - tr ack program s i n som e j uri sdi ct i on s ar e or ar e no t , or m aybe in cert ai n cir cum st ances, cons i der ed unw arr ant ed under § 3553( a) ( 6) . ” I d. at1131. R ather , not i ng that 2 § 3553( a) ( 6) “i s butone of s ever al fac t or s fora courtt o cons i deri n det erm i ni ng a r eas onabl e s ent ence , ” w e conc l uded thatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s anal y s i s w as s uffi ci entbeca us e i t“r evi ew ed al l t he fa ct or s l i s t ed i n § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng § 3553( a) ( 6) , and conc l uded thatt heyful l ys uppor t ed the s ent ence i m pos ed. ” I d. Si m i l ar l y , i n t hi s cas e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s anal y s i s w as s uffi ci ent . A l though unl i ke the courti n M or al es - C hai r es , t he di s tr i ctcourti n thi s cas e di d not expl i ci t l y“[go] t hr ough eac h of the s t atut or ys ent enci ng fac t or s ” att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, i d. at1126, w e have r epea t edl yhel d thatdi s tr i ctcourt s need not“mar ch t hr ough § 3553( a) ’ s s ent enci ng fac t or s ” befor e i m pos i ng s ent ence s . U ni t ed St at es v. R i nes , 419 F. 3d 1104, 1107 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , cert . deni ed, 126 S. C t . 1089 (20 0 6 ); U n it ed S tat es v . L o p ez -F lores, 44 4 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 2

– 2 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed St at es v. C or chado, 427 F. 3d 815, 821 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , cert . deni ed, 126 S . C t. 18 1 1 (2 0 0 6 ). M o re im p o rta n tly , the d istric t co u rt d idspeci fi cal l yadd res s § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ), t h e s o le fa c to r o n w h ic h M r. T e lle z -A c o s ta ’s a rg u m e n t is b a s e d .- 5 -

T he courtr ecogni zed the “numer i cal di s par i ty ” cr eat ed bythe us e of fas t - tr ack p ro g ra m s in o th e r ju risd ictio n s, b u t co n c lu d e d th a t su a sp o n te appl y i ng fas t - tr ack s ent enci ng i n U t ah w oul d “cr eat e di s par i tyi n and of i t s el f. ” Tr. of Sent enci ng at 11, R . V ol . I I . Fur t her , t he courtconcl uded thattry i ng t o acc ountforfas t - tr ack program s, “w hich [are] i n p l ace i n o nlyapp roxi m at el y15 percent of di stri ct s, w oul d under m i ne . . . uni form i t yamong si m i l ar l ys i tuat ed defendant s . ” I d. (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e re c o rd th u s s h o w s th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t fa il t o co n side r sen tenc e d ispa ri ti es; rathe r, itsim p lyrejected M r. T ell ez -A co sta’s a rg u m e n t as to th e sig n ifica n c e o f fa st-tra c k p ro g ra m s w ith re g a rd to § 3553( a) ( 6) . W e ca nnots ayi n thi s cas e thatt he court ’ s eval uat i on of the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors w as e rror. B eca us e M r . T el l ez- A cos t a has notr ebutt ed the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s forhi s G ui del i nes s ent ence , w e A FFIRM hi s s ent ence . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge