T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener 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 der and 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 

### M ay19,2006 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, N o. 05- 1368 v. ( D . C ol or ado) J ES US S ALAZAR - ALP I ZAR,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 44 - F)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

J es us Sal aza r - A l pi zar , a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M exi co, pl ed gui l tyt o one countof i l l egal r eentr ybyan al i en pr evi ous l ydepor t ed s ubs equentt o an a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n yc o n v i c t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) . He w as s ent ence d t o for t y - s i x m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H e appe al s hi s s ent ence , w hi ch we a ffi r m.-2- BA CKGROUND O n D e c e m b e r2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , S a l a z a r - A l p i z a rw a s a rr e s t e d i n A d a m s C o u n ty, C ol or ado, on char ges of havi ng fai l ed t o r egi s t eras a s ex offender . I m m i gr at i on author i t i es w er e not i fi ed of hi s i l l egal s t atus and he w as arr es t ed on the i ns t ant offe ns e. Sal aza r - A l pi zarpl ed gui l t ypur s uantt o a pl ea a gr eement . T he pl ea agr eementi ncl uded a t ent at i ve ca l cul at i on of Sal aza r - A l pi zar ’ s t ot al adj us t ed offe ns e l evel undert he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, G ui del i nes M anual ( 2004) ( “U SSG ”) , as 21, hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryas cat egoryI I and a r es ul t ant advi s or ys ent enci ng r ange of for ty - one t o fi fty - one mont hs . T he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch conc urr ed w i th t he pl ea a gr eement ’ s cal cul at i on of Sal aza r - A l pi zar ’ s offe ns e l evel , butdet erm i ned t hathi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw as I I I . T hi s y i el ded an a dvi s or yG ui del i nes r ange of for t y - s i x t o fi fty - s even mont hs . T he PSR r ecomm ended a for ty - s i xm ont h s ent ence . S a laz a r-A lp iza r filed a re sp o n se to th e P S R , in w h ich h e sta ted th a t h e d id n o to bj e c tt o t h e Gu i d e l i n e c a l c u l a t i o n s , b u tt h a th e “ b e l i e v e [ d ] t h a t1 8 U. S . C. § 3553 m andat es a s ent ence bel ow t hatr eques t ed byt he Pr obat i on D epart m ent . ” R e sp . & O bjec tio n s a t 1 , A d d e n d u m to P S R , R . V o l. IV . H e f u rth e r a rg u e d th a t a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence of tw enty - fourm onths w as appr opr i at e fort hr ee r eas ons : ( 1) 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 1) , w hi ch r equi r es t he courtt o cons i dert heF a st-tra c k p ro g ra m s p e rm it l o w e r se n ten c e s fo r illeg a l re e n tryd e fe n d a n ts 1 in c e rt a in c ir c u m s ta n c e s . -3- natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defe ndant , s ugges t s a l es s ers ent ence beca us e Sal aza r - A l pi zar“r eturned t o [the U nit ed S t at es] i n o rdert o p rovi de financial supp ortt o h i s fam i l y ” and his l at est empl oy ers t at ed Sal aza r - A l pi zarhas a “gr eatw or k ethi c, ” R es p. & O bj ect i ons at 2, A ddendum t o PSR , R . V ol . I V ; ( 2) hi s pr i oraggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on for at t empt ed l ew d and l as ci vi ous conductunj us t l yi ncr eas ed both hi s offe ns e l evel a n d h i s c r i mi n a l h i s t o r ya n d o c c u rr e d n e a r l yt e n y e a r s a g o ; a n d ( 3 ) 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ), w h ich in c lu d e s a s a se n ten c in g fa c to r “ th e n e e d to a v o id unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es among defendant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho h a v e b e e n fo u n d g u iltyo f sim ilar c o n d u c t,” s u g g e sts a les se r se n ten c e in o rd e r to mi n i mi z e s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i t i e s c a u s e d b yth e e x i s t e n c e o f “ fa s t - tr a c k ” p r o g r a ms i n ot herfede r al di s t r i ct s butnoti n C ol or ado. 1 T h e g o v e r n me n tr e s p o n d e d t o S a l a z a r - Al p i z a r ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra b e l o wG u id e lin e s s e n ten c e , arg u in g th a t (1 ) th e fa c t th a t h e w a s w o rk in g to su p p o rt h is fami l yw as i r r el evantt o hi s s ent ence cal cul at i on, part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof the fa ct t hathi s pr i oraggr avat ed fe l onyconvi ct i on m ade hi m i nel i gi bl e t o be i n the U n ited S tate s fo r a n yre a so n ; (2 ) h is te n -y e a r-o ld a g g ra v a ted fe lo n yc o n v ictio n is d w a rfe d b yh is s u b se q u e n t cr im in a l co n v ictio n s a n d p e n d in g c h a rg e s, w h ich led to a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I ; and ( 3) hi s fas t - tr ack s ent enci ng di s par i t i es-4-

ar gum entw as unavai l i ng beca us e “w hen C ongr es s appr oved of the fa s t - tr ack p ro g ra m s a n d g ra n ted th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l th e p o w e r to a u th o riz e th e m , it deci ded thatt hes e pr ogr ams di d notcr eat e the unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es th a t C o n g re s s h a d p ro h ib ite d p re v io u s ly u n d e r [ 1 8 U .S .C . § ] 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ).” Go v e r n me n t ’ s Re s p . a t3 n . 1 , Ad d e n d u m t o P S R, R. Vo l . I V. A ts ent enci ng, ot heri nform at i on aboutSal aza r - A l pi zarw as i ntr oduced, i ncl udi ng t he fa ctt hathe had be en i n the U ni t ed St at es s i nce he w as s event een; he h ad h eld a job fo r th e p ast five y ea rs an d h ad a p o sit ive lett er f rom h is em p loy er; he had be en form al l ydepor t ed tw i ce pr evi ous l y , i n 1998 and 2000, and had vol unt ar i l yr etur ned t o M exi co once , i n 1999; he had f i ve pr i orconvi ct i ons ( the 1 9 9 6 a g g ra v a ted fe lo n yc o n v ictio n fo r a ttem p ted lew d a n d las c iv io u s c o n d u c t, tw o d riv in g -u n d e r-th e -in flu e n c e -o f-a lco h o l co n v ictio n s, o n e th ird -d e g re e a ss a u lt and domest i c vi ol ence convi ct i on i nvol vi ng a gi r l fr i end, and one c ar el es s dr i vi ng co n v ict ion ); an d h e fac ed a p en d ing ch arg e o f fail u re to reg ist er a s a se x o ffen d er. A tt he conc l us i on of the s ent enci ng hear i ng, the di s tr i ctcour tadopt ed the fac tual fi ndi ngs and G ui del i ne appl i cat i ons of the PSR and i m pos ed a s ent ence of for t y - s i x m ont hs . E xpl ai ni ng i t s r eas oni ng, the courts t at ed that“[t ] he s exual m i s conduct[i nvol vi ng] an under - age pe r s on i s tr oubl i ng, as w el l as [hi s ] fai l ur e .

. . t o r egi s t eras a s ex offender. . . and eve n though the offens e i s s om ew hat r emoved i n t i m e, i ti s s t i l l a s er i ous fac t orthatI need t o cons i der . ” Tr. of Sent enci ng at34, R . V ol . I I I . A ddi t i onal l y , “[t ] he fa ctthatther e have been other-5-

cr i m es comm i t t ed thatputt he publ i c atr i s k, and al s o one i nvol vi ng a cr i m e of vi ol ence w i t h r es pectt o a gi r l fr i end, i s al s o tr oubl i ng. ” I d. W i t h r es pectt o t he fa s t - t r ack di s par i tyi s s ue, the di s tr i ctcour tconcl uded t hatt hi s ci r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. A r m ent a- C as tr o, 227 F. 3d 1255 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) , hol di ng t hatt he then- m andat oryG ui del i nes di d notal l ow d e p a r tu r e s b a s e d o n fa s t - t r a c k d i s p a r i t i e s , “ d o e s h a v e s o m e . . . l i n g e r i n g v i t a l i t y” aft erU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w hi ch hel d thatthe G u id e lin e s a re n o lo n g e r m a n d a to ry. T r. o f S e n te n c in g a t 3 4 , R . V o l. I II . No n e t h e l e s s , t h e c o u r tn o t e d i twa s tr o u b l e d b yth e i mp a c to f fa s t - tr a c k p r o g r a ms o n th e “ c o n s is te n c ya n d u n ifo rm ity o f s e n te n c in g a ro u n d th e c o u n tr y .” Id . a t 3 5 . T h e c o u rt e m p h a siz e d , h o w e v e r, th a t itw a s “ stu d y in g th e se p a rticu lar fa c to rs, th is ind ividu al’s pe rson al ch ara cterist ics, ” a n d co n clud ed “tha t [S alaz ar-A lpizar] s houl d have be en exc eedi ngl ycar eful bei ng a non- ci t i zen i n thi s country . Y et , for w h a tev e r re a so n s, h e w a s u n w ill in g o r u n a b le to liv e a n e x e m p lar ylife w h ile liv in g h e re , n o tw ith sta n d in g a lau d a b le w o rk h isto rya n d th e re sp e c t o f h is empl oy erand, appar ent l y , t he l ove of hi s fami l y . ” I d. S alaz ar-A lpizar a p p ea ls his sen tenc e, arg u ing (1) “ that the d istri ct co u rt err ed i n bel i evi ng i tw as pr ohi bi t ed fr om gi vi ng hi m a non- G ui del i ne s ent ence bas ed on fa s t - t r ack di s par i t y , and thatthi s err orw as notharm l es s , ” and ( 2) “that hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. ” A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . at1.-6- DI S CU S S I ON A s i ndi cat ed, fol l ow i ng t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ooker , t he G u idelines are ad v isoryrathe r th an m an d atory . N o n ethe less, b ec au se c o u rt s are r equi r ed t o “cons i der ” the pr oper l y - cal cul at ed G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange, U ni t ed St at es v. G onzal ez- H uer t a, 403 F. 3d 727, 748- 49 ( 10th C i r . ) ( en banc ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n o m itt e d ), ce rt. d e n ied , 1 2 6 S . C t. 49 5 (2 0 0 5 ), w e c o n tin u e to r evi ew t he s ent enci ng cour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs undert he G ui del i nes forcl earerr or and i t s l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo. U ni t ed St at es v. Serr at a, 425 F. 3d 886, 906 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s t he ul t i m at e s ent ence i m pos ed, B ooker , 543 U . S. at261- 62 ( B r ey er , J . ) “gui ded byt he fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” U ni t ed St at es v. K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053 ( 10th C i r . 2006) (pe r cu ri am ). I . F as t - t rack di s pari t i es Fas t - t r ack pr ogr ams w er e or i gi nal l yconfi ned l ar gel yt o s t at es bor der i ng M exi co, w her e fe der al pr os ecut or s w er e “face d w i th i ncr eas i ng num ber s of i l l egal r eentr yand otheri m m i gr at i on cas es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M or al es - C hai r es , 430 F. 3d 11 24 , 11 27 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ). A l tho ug h theyvaryas t o thei r par t i cular s, t hese pr ogr ams gene r al l yperm i t“defendant s acc us ed of c er t ai n i m m i gr at i on offe ns es [t o] pl ead gui l t year l yi n t he pr oces s and w ai ve thei rr i ght s t o fi l e ce r t ai n m ot i ons a n d to a p p e a l, i n e x c h a n g e fo r a sh o rte r se n ten c e .” Id . T h e sh o rte r se n ten c e isA ddi t i onal l y , “on Sept ember22, 2003, t hen- A t t or neyG ener al J ohn 2 A s hcr ofti s s ued a mem or andum . . . expl ai ni ng the ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch he w oul d ‘ author i ze[ ] ’ a fa s t - t r ack pr ogr am. ” U ni t ed St at es v. M ar t i nez- Fl or es , 428 F. 3d 22, 25 ( 1s tC i r . 2005) , cert . deni ed, 126 S. C t . 1449 ( 2006) . T he me mo r a n d u m s t a t e d t h a ta d i s t r i c ts e e k i n g a u th o r i z a t i o n o f fa s t - tr a c k p r o g r a ms m u st d e m o n stra te th a t it“ c o n f ro n ts a n e x c e p tio n a llylar g e n u m b e r o f a sp e c ific cl as s of offens es w i t hi n t he di s t r i ct ” ort hati t“conf r ont s s om e otherexce pt i onal l ocal ci r cumst ance w i t h r es pectt o a s peci fi c cl as s of ca s es t hatj us t i fi es expedi t ed d isp o sitio n .” M e m o ra n d u m f ro m A tto rn e yG e n e ra l Jo h n A sh c ro f t S e tti n g F o rth J u s tic e D e p a rt m e n t’ s “ F a s t- T ra c k ” P o lic ie s , 1 6 F e d . S e n t. R . 1 3 4 (S e p t. 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 ). (c o n tin u e d ...) -7- typ ica lly“ a c c o m p lish e d e ith e r b yc h a rg e -b a rg a in in g o r b yp ro m isin g to r ecomm end a dow nw ar d departur e ats ent enci ng. ” I d. C ongr es s endor s ed the conc eptof fa s t - tr acki ng i n 2003, enac t i ng t he Pr os ecut or i al R emedi es and O t herT ool s t o end the Expl oi t at i on of C hi l dr en T odayA ct( “PR O T E C T A ct ”) , Pub. L . N o. 108- 21, 117 St at . 650 ( 2003) ( codi fi ed i n s catt er ed s ect i ons of 18, 28 and 42 U . S. C . ) . T he A ctdi r ect ed the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on t o “pr om ul gat e . . . a pol i cys t at ementauthor i zi ng a dow nw ar d departur e of notm or e than 4 l evel s i f the G overnm entfi l es a mot i on fors uch depa r tur e pur s uantt o an ea r l ydi s pos i t i on pr ogr am aut hor i zed bythe A tto rn e yG e n e ra l a n d th e U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y .” 1 1 7 S ta t. a t 6 7 5 . A ccor di ngl y , t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on added a new G ui del i nes pr ovi s i on, e ffe c t i ve O c t ob e r23 , 20 03 , w hi c h a utho r i z e d a fo ur - l e ve l de pa r tur e . Se e U SSG §5K 3. 1 ( author i zi ng a dow nw ar d departur e “notm or e than 4 l evel s pur s uantt o an ear l ydi s pos i t i on pr ogr am aut hor i zed bythe A t t or neyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es a n d t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s At t o r n e y fo r th e d i s tr i c t i n wh i c h th e c o u r t r e s i d e s ” ) . At 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 T he mem or andum furtherpr ovi ded that“any[fa s t - tr ack] pr ogr am i n exi s t ence on t he d at e of thi s M em orandu m m ayno tbe co nti nu ed af t er O ct ob er 27, 20 03 , un l ess a fa s t - t r ack pr opos al has been s ubm i t t ed and appr oved. ” I d. O n O ct ober29, 2004, D eputyA t t orneyG ener al J ames B. C om eyauthor i zed t hi r t een fas t - t r ack pr ogr ams, i ncl udi ng s om e i n di s tr i ct s w hi ch do notbor der M exi co. B ot h par t i es agr ee thatther e ar e a numberof otherdi s tr i ct s oper at i ng fas t - t r ack pr ogr ams w hi ch have notbeen s peci fi cal l yauthor i zed bythe A t t or ney G ener al . Sal aza r - A l pi zarcont ends thatanyand al l di s par i t i es cr eat ed bythe ex ist en ce o f fast-trac k p rog ram s in so m e d istri cts b u t no t i n o thers a re unw arr ant ed. H e furt herar gues , how ever , thateven i f one w er e t o conce de that dis pari t i es caused b yauthori zed fast -track program s ar e no tun w arr anted, tho se caus ed byunauthor i zed fas t - t r ack pr ogr ams ar e cl ear l yunw arr ant ed: “eve n i f the d isp a rities c re a ted b yfa st-tra c k p ro g ra m s a p p ro v e d b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l co u ld be cons i der ed w arr ant ed i f theyoper at ed w i thi n the bounds of C ongr es s i onal appr oval . . . t hats ay s not hi ng aboutthe di s par i t i es cr eat ed bythe pr ogr ams that o p e ra te b e y o n d th e sc o p e o f C o n g re ss io n a l ap p ro v a l o r th o se th a t o p e ra te u n o ffici all yw ith n o C o n g ression al san cti o n w h atso ev er.” A p p ell an t’ s R ep lyB r. at12. I n l i ghtof ourconcl us i on thatthe di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l ydet erm i ned that t he exi s t ence of fa s t - t r ack di s par i t i es w as s i m pl ya fa ct ori n i t s cal cul at i on of Sal aza r - A l pi zar ’ s s ent ence , w e nee d notcons i derfur theranyar gum entconce rni ng authori zed v s. un authori zed fast -track program s. -8- t he t i m e Sal aza r - A l pi zarw as s ent ence d, a numberof di s tr i ct s had fa s t - tr ack p ro g ra m s, b u t C o lo ra d o d id n o t. S a laz a r-A lp iza r a rg u e s th a t, ha d h e b e e n a b le to t ake a dvant age of

a fa s t - t r ack pr ogr am, hi s s ent ence w oul d have be en s hor t erthan the fo rty -si x -m o n th se n tenc e h e re ce ived in this ca se. T h u s, h e a rgu es th e c o u rt h e re sh o u ld h a v e re d u c e d h is s e n ten c e to re flec t th e fa c t th a t d e fe n d a n ts in fa stt rack program s r ecei ve sho rt er s entences. S a laz a r-A lp iza r a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt “ e rro n e o u slyc o n c lu d e d th a t it w as bound byt hi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A r m ent a- C as tr o nott o varyfr om the G ui del i nes bas ed on fa s t - t r ack s ent enci ng di s par i t i es . ” A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at9--9-

10. I n A r m ent a- C as t r o, a ca s e dec i ded pr i ort o B ooker , w e hel d thatthe exi s t ence of s ent enci ng di s par i t i es caus ed byfas t - tr ack pr ogr ams i n s om e di s tr i ct s di d not p rov ide a n ap p rop ri ate b asis fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture f rom the th en -m an d atory G u idelines . S alaz ar-A lpizar a rgu es th at B o o k er, w h ich h eld th e G u idelines are o n lya d v iso ry , ab ro g a ted A rm e n ta- C a stro , b u t th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to r e c o g n i z e t h a ta b r o g a t i o n wh e n i tn o t e d th a tAr me n t a - Ca s tr o “ d o e s h a v e s o me a p p l i c a t i o n , l i n g e r i n g v i t a l i t ys i n c e . . . Bo o k e r . ” Tr . o f S e n t e n c i n g Hr ’ g a t3 4 , R. V ol . I I I . W e di s agr ee. Itis cl ea r fro m a re v iew o f th e e n ti re trans cript of S alaz ar-A lpizar’s s ent enci ng hear i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed w hetherthe di s par i t i es caus ed byt he exi s t ence of fa s t - t r ack pr ogr ams i n cert ai n di s tr i ct s s houl d caus e the cour tt o s ent ence Sal aza r - A l pi zarbel ow the advi s or yG ui del i ne r ange. I ndeed, the c o u rtind icated itw as “ tr o u b led b ythe . . . fa ct th at oth er d istri cts h av e m o re [i l l egal r eentr y ] cr i m i nal i t y. . . t han thi s di s tr i ct , [y et ] . . . l es s ers ent ence [s ] [ar e] appl i ed t o ot herpeopl e, beca us e . . . one maj orpurpos e of the s ent enci ng gui del i nes i s cons i s t encyand uni form i tyof s ent enci ng ar ound the country . ” I d. at 3 4 -3 5 . H o w e v e r, b a se d u p o n th e “ p a rticu lar fa c to rs [ o f § 3 5 5 3 (a ), in c lu d in g ], th is in d iv id u a l’s p e rso n a l ch a ra c ter istics ” th e c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t a s e n ten c e w ith in t he G ui del i ne r ange w as appr opr i at e. M er el ynot i ng t he “l i nger i ng vi t al i ty ” of A rm en ta-C astro is fa r differe n t from co n side ri n g itb ind ing , an d the c o u rt ’s r eas oni ng i ndi cat ed thati ts ent ence d Sal aza r - A l pi zaron the bas i s of i t s eval uat i onI ndeed, m uch of the r eas oni ng of A r m ent a- C as tr o r emai ns r el evantand 3 a p p lica b le, e v e n if

it w a s d e c id e d u n d e r a m a n d a to ryG u id e lin e sy ste m . W e still c o n sid e r a n d in terp re t th e G u id e lin e s, e v e n th o u g h th e yd o n o t b in d c o u rts in reachi ng reas on able s entences. -10- of hi m and hi s conduct , not beca us e i t fel t bound by A r m ent a- C as tr o. W e 3 t her efor e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcourtcomm i tt ed no err ori n i t s anal y s i s of the rel evan ce of

fast -track di spari t i es. I I . R eas onabl enes s of s ent ence Sal aza r - A l pi zar ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum enti s t hathi s for ty - s i x- m onth s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. I n part i cul ar , he ar gues t he unw arr ant ed di s par i t i es caus ed by fas t - t r ack s ent enci ng r ender ed the s ent ence unr eas onabl e. A s i ndi cat ed, aft er B ooker , w e r evi ew s ent ence s forr eas onabl enes s . W e have r ece nt l yexpl ai ned how w e conduc tt hatr eas onabl enes s r evi ew . W e have j oi ned s ever al other ci r cui t s i n concl udi ng t hat“a s ent ence t hati s pr oper l ycal cul at ed undert he G ui del i nes i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d at1054. A ccor di ngl y , w hen conduc t i ng r eas onabl enes s r evi ew of a s ent ence im p o s e d p o s t- B o o k e r, w e e m p lo ya “ tw o -s te p a p p ro a c h [ ,] . . . [ f]i rs t . . . det erm i n[i ng] w hethert he di s t r i ctcourtcons i der ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange, ” and c or r ect l ycal cul at ed i t . I d. at1055. I f the courts ent ence d the defe ndantw i t hi n t hatr ange, t he defendantm ayr ebutt he pr es um pt i ve re a so n a b len e ss o f

th a t se n ten c e “ b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t th e se n ten c e is-11-

u n re a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e o th e r s e n te n c in g fa c to rs la id o u t in § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” Id . T hati s “a de fer ent i al s t andar d. ” I d. at1054. 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) di r ect s cour t s t o cons i dervar i ous fac t or s , i ncl udi ng t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defe ndant ; t he nee d fort he part i cul ars ent ence t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e, pr om ot e r es pectfort he l aw and pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm ent , as w el l as the need t o pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence , pr ot ectthe publ i c, and pr ovi de the defendant w ith a p p ro p ria te tre a tm e n t; th e typ e s o f se n ten c e s a v a ilab le; a n d “ th e n e e d to avoi d 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 be en found gui l t yof s i m i l arconduct . ” I d. ( a) ( 1) - ( 6) . Sal aza r - A l pi zar a r g u e s t h a t“ [ s ] e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i t i e s b a s e d s o l e l y o n th e v a g a r i e s o f g e o g r a p h y, rather than on t he fa ct s of an offense or an o ffen der’ s i nd i vidual charact eri st i cs, ar e ‘ unw arr ant ed, ’ ” and r es ul ti n a s ent ence gr eat erthan nec es s aryt o achi eve the g o als o f se n tenc ing set fo rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a). T he defendanti n M or al es - C hai r es m ade the s ame ar gum entSal aza r - A l pi zar does her e. I n t hatcas e, t he di s t r i ctcour tr efus ed t o cons i derfas t - tr ack s ent enci ng di s par i t i es , concl udi ng t hatt o do s o w oul d vi ol at e the doctr i ne of s epar at i on of pow er s . I n r evi ew i ng t he r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence i m pos ed, w e hel d that w e di d not“nee d [t o] r es ol ve w hethers ent enci ng di s par i t i es caus ed bythe e x iste n c e o f

fa st-tra c k p ro g ra m s in so m e ju risd ictio n s a re o r a re n o t, or m a yb e in cert ai n cir cum st ances, con si dered u nw arr anted un der § 35 53 (a) (6) . ” M oral es--12-

C hai r es , 430 F. 3d at1131. T hatw as beca us e § 3553( a) ( 6) “i s butone of s ever al fa c t o r s fo ra c o u r tt o c o n s i d e ri n d e t e r m i n i n g a r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e . ” I d . We hel d t hata cons i der at i on of al l t he § 3553( a) fac t or s i ndi cat ed the s ent ence i m pos ed i n t hatcas e w as r eas onabl e. In th is c a se , in c a lcu latin g S a laz a r-A lp iza r’s se n ten c e th e d istric t co u rt d id i n fac tcons i dert he exi s t ence of s ent enci ng di s par i t i es caus ed byfas t - tr ack pr ogr ams. I tconcl uded thatt hos e di s par i t i es di d notfurni s h a bas i s for se n ten c in g S a laz a r-A lp iza r o u tsid e o f th e a p p lica b le a d v iso ryG u id e lin e ra n g e , in v iew o f th e o th e r re lev a n t se n ten c in g fa c to rs. T h a t d e c isio n is c o n sis ten t w ith M or al es - C hai r es , as w el l as everyotherci r cui tcourtdeci s i on thathas addr es s ed t he mat t er . See U ni t ed St at es v. M ar ci al - Sant i ago, N os . 05- 30248, 05- 30249, 05- 30251, 2006 W L 1215444, at*2- 3 ( 9th C i r . M ay8, 2006) ( “B yauthor i zi ng fas t - t r ack pr ogr ams w i t houtr evi s i ng t he t erm s of § 3553( a) ( 6) , C ongr es s w as nece s s ar i l ypr ovi di ng t hatt he s ent enci ng di s par i t i es thatr es ul t. . . ar e w arr ant ed [and] . . . [e] ven i f the[s e] di s par i t [i es ] w er e as s um ed t o be unw arr ant ed, . . . that fa c to r a lo n e w o u ld n o t re n d e r A p p e llan ts’ s e n ten c e s u n re a so n a b le; th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rra n ted se n ten c in g d isp a rities is o n lyo n e fa c to r a d istric t co u rt is to cons i deri n i m pos i ng a s ent ence . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M ont es - Pi neda, N o. 05- 4411, 2 0 0 6 W L 1 0 6 2 1 5 4 , at * 4 (4 th C ir. A p r. 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) (“ [ W ]e h o ld th a t m e re ly poi nt i ng outt he exi s t ence of s uch [fas t - tr ack] di s par i t i es , w i th no r efe r ence t o t he char act er i s t i cs of the part i cul ardefe ndant , does notr endera w i thi n- G ui del i nes-13-

s ent ence unr eas onabl e. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G al i ci a- C ar denas , 443 F. 3d 553, 555 ( 7t h C i r . 2006) ( percur i am) ( r ever s i ng di s tr i ctcour ts ent ence i m pos ed w i th a fo u r - l e v e l d o wn wa r d d e p a r tu r e b e c a u s e th e d i s tr i c tl a c k e d a fa s t - tr a c k p r o g r a m, l eaving t o the di stri ctcou rt ’s dis cret i on “[w ]hether [defe nd ant] deserves a s ent ence bel ow t he advi s or ygui del i ne r ange ba s ed on otherfac t or s ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M art i nez- M art i nez, 442 F. 3d 539, 543 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hatany d isp a rityb e tw e e n th e d e fe n d a n t’s s e n ten c e a n d th o se a v a ilab le o r im p o se d in fa stt r ack j ur i s di ct i ons “w as cons i der ed appr opr i at el yas a s i ngl e, and notcontr ol l i ng, fac t or ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sebas t i an, 436 F. 3d 913, 916 ( 8th C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hat“the s ent ence di s par i t i es ar i s i ng fr om fas t - tr ack pr ogr ams [do not ] m ake[ ] th [ e ] [ d e fe n d a n t’ s ] s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le ” ); M a rt in e z -F lo re s , 4 2 8 F .3 d a t 3 0 n .3 ( s t at i ng i n di ct a “[ i ] ti s ar guabl e thateven pos t - B ooker , i tw oul d neverbe r eas onabl e t o departdow nw ar d bas ed on di s par i t i es betw een fas t - tr ack a nd nonfas t - t r ack j ur i s di ct i ons gi ven C ongr es s ’ cl ear( i f i m pl i ed) s t at ementi n the PR O T E C T A ctpr ovi s i on t hats uch di s par i t i es ar e ac cept abl e”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Jim e n e z -B e ltre, 4 4 0 F .3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (e n b a n c ) (n o tin g its d icta in M ar t i nez- Fl or es , and fi ndi ng t hati n the ca s e befor e i t , the defendant“had not furni s hed a factual bas i s foras s es s i ng the ext entof the [fas t - tr ack] di s par i t i es or pr ovi ded a r eas on w hyt o t ake them i nt o acc ount [, ] . . . [s o] [i ] n decl i ni ng t o al t er t he s ent ence on t hi s gr ound, t he di s tr i ctcour tdi d notactunr eas onabl y ” ( ci t at i on-14-

om i t t ed) ) . W e ac cor di ngl yconcl ude thatSal aza r - A l pi zar ’ s s ent ence w as r eas onabl e.

CO NC L US I ON F o rt h e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e s e n t e n c e i s AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge