NO T F OR P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0128n.06 F iled: F ebruary 15, 2007 NO. 06-3112 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P lai nt iff-A ppe lle e , ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT v. COURT F OR THE S OUTHERN DI STRIC T OF OHI O NOE JES US CASTRO-MARTINEZ, Defendan t-Appellant. _________________________________/ BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS, and COOK, Cir cuit Judges. SUHRHEINRICH, J. , Def endant- Appellant Noe J esus Cast ro-Ma rtinez (“De fenda

nt”) ple a de d guil ty

to r e e ntr y of an il le g a l a lie n, in v iol a tio n o f 8 U .S .C
. § 1326 . H e a pp e a ls h is sentenc e fr o m t h e Un i t ed S tates District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Di vis ion ( “ dis tr ic t c ourt ” ), c on te nd ingit i s unr e a so na ble be c a us e : ( 1) the a c tua l se ve ri ty of his previous convic tions supported a sentenc e below the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e; (2) the di s trict court re fused to sente nce him below the Guidelines ra ng e base d on sentenc es of other illega l
a lie ns in s o- c a lle d “ fa st- tr a c k” jur isd ic tio ns ; and (3 ) t he dis tr ic t c ourt

re fu se d to se nte nc e him below the Guide lines rang e base d on sentenc es of other illega l aliens within the Southern District of Ohio. F or the re asons that follow, we AF F IRM
. I. F acts On Marc h 29, 2005, Miami Township police offic ers responded to a domestic alter cation involving a H ispanic male a nd his girlf

riend. Aft er being identified as the ma le involved in the2

d o me s ti c a lt e r c a ti o n , D e f e n d an t a dmi tt e d h e d id n o t p o s s e s s an y f o r m o f id e n ti f

ic a ti on. When questioned b y t h e off

icer s, Defe ndant g ave the police a f alse name and a dmitted he was a n illega l alien. Afte r he w as fing erpr inted by the police, his identity wa s re v ea led to be Noe J esus Ca str o- Mart ine z. De fe nd ant wa s arr e ste d and c ha rg e d wi th fa lsi fi c a tio n and un lawf ul res tr aint , in v i o l at ion of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2905.03 (West 2004). The Miami Township police of fi c e rs c on tac ted the B ur e a u o f Immi g ratio n a

nd Cus tom s E nf

or c e me nt ( “ I CE” ). Whe n I CE of fi c ia ls i nte rv ie we d D e fe nd ant, he co nfi rme d h e wa s a c iti zen of Me xico and

ha d p re vio us ly been de ported fr om the United Sta t es i n 1999 and 2001. A r eview of his criminal rec ord
re ve a le d th a t w hil e in t

he Un ite d St a te s, De fe nd ant h a d b e e n arrest e d f our t ime s f

or a ssa ult : in J uly 1991, J une 1994, Oc tober 1995, an d September 1996. H e wa s convicted f or the 1991 a

nd 19 96 arr e sts
. On April 13, 2005, De fenda nt was take n into feder al custody . On May 18, 2005, Def endant wa s indicted by

a fe dera l gr and jury

on char g es of r een t ry o f re m oved alien, pur suant to 8 U
. S.C. § 1326. On J uly 25, 2005, Def

endant e ntere d a guilty

plea to the Indictment. At Def enda n t ’s November

23, 2005, sentenc ing he aring , the district court c alculate d Def endant’ s Gu ide lin e s r ang e purs ua

nt to U.S . Sen te nc ingGu ide lin e s Ma nu a l § 2 L 1. 2 ( 20 04 ): Un lawf ull y Enteringor Remaining in the United States. The c ourt assig ned De fenda nt a net o ff

en s e l ev el of twenty -one, a

criminal history

score of six , and a c rimi n al h i s t o ry ca teg ory of I I I . This resulted in a n a dv iso ry

Gu ide lin e s r ang e of

46 to 57 months . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de pa rt e d d ow nw ard

six months below the Guidelines ra ng e to 40 months. This was i n re co gn i tion that Defe ndant’s ille gal status rende red him inelig ible for g ood time cre dit or halfwa y house desig nation at the end of his sente nce.3

On a pp e a l, D e fe nd ant c on te nd s h is s e nte nc e is un reas ona ble be c a us e the a c tua l se ve ri ty of his previous convic tion sup p o rt s a sentenc e below the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e. Additionally , Def

endant a rgu es t he district cour

t unrea sonably

ref used to sentenc e him below the Guidelines ra

ng e base d on the di ff

er ences betwe en his sentenc e and se ntence s of other illeg al aliens in fast-tr ack jur isdictions and the differ ence s bet wee n his sentence and sente nces of other illega l aliens within the Southern District of Ohio. II. Stand ard of Review “[W ]he n a d efe ndant cha lleng es a district c ourt' s sentencingdeter mination, we ar e instructed to deter

mine ‘whe ther [ t h e] s en t ence is unreasona ble.’” United States v. W ebb , 403 F. 3 d 3 7 3 , 3 8 3 ( 6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005)). “ [A] sentenc e is unrea sonabl e when the district judg e fa ils to ‘consider’ the applicable Guidelines
ra ng e or ne g le c ts t o c on sid e r t

he oth e r factor s li st ed in 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ), and ins te a d s imp ly selec t s what the judge de ems an a ppropriate sentenc e without such re quired c onsideration.” W ebb , 4 0 3 F. 3 d

at 3 8 3 (c i t i n g Booke r , 543 U.S. at 24 5 -46). “ [S ]entences pr operly calc ulated under the Guidelines [are c redited] with a re butta b l e p re s umption of reasona bleness.” United States v. W

illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006 ). W e re view the district cour t’s leg al int e rp re tatio n o f t

he Gu ide lin e s de novo

. Un ite d S tates v . A rn old, 58 F.3d 111 7 , 1 1 2 0 (6 t h Cir. 1995). III . A nal ys is A. Sever ity of Pr ior Conviction De fe nd ant c on te nd s h is s e nte nc e is un reas on a ble be c a us e the a c tua l se ve ri ty

of his state convi cti on of ag g ravated assault supported a sentenc e conside rably

below the a dvisory Guidelines ra

ng e. I n J uly 1991, Def

endant wa s arr ested for

ag g ravated assault, to which heTh e Pr e se nte nc e I nv e sti g a tio n Re po rt ind ic a te s th a t D e fe nd ant’ s p ro batio n w a s r e vo ke d a s a 1 re su lt o f c omm itt inga

ne w c ri min a l of

fe ns e , f a ili ngto r e po rt

to t he pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e , f a ili ngto pay court c osts and probation fe es, and f ailing to attend Alcoholics Anony mous. I n addition, the district court ca ref ully considere d Def

endant’ s prior cr iminal recor d, which 2 included anothe r convic tion in 1996 for assault ca using bodily

injury . Def

endant wa s sentence d to one y ear

of probation for the 1996 convic tion. This probation was also re voked, and Def endant wa s sentence d to 180 day s in jail. 4 pleade d g uilty

and wa s g iven three y ear s of probation. Defe ndant’s probation was revoke d,
re sult in g in a

se nte nc e of

18 0 d ay s in

pr iso n. De fe nd ant c on te nd s b e c a us e he wa s se nte nc e d to 1 probati o n , and only

rec eived a

180-day jail sentence afte r havinghis probation revoke d, the conviction did not refle ct the deg ree of dang erousnes s s u fficient to just ify a six teen- level
e nh anc e me nt t o h is b a se of fe ns e le ve l. 2 Addre ssing the se verity

of prior c onvictions, the district court stated: I f I wer e re quired to ana ly

ze t h e 16-level enha

nceme nt based upon the fac ts and circ umstances of this defenda

nt, I , quite fra

nkly would n o t be able to say that it is ex cessive. . . .

. . . Ifully understand the argume nt that these [convictions] couldn’t have been a s bad as the na

me of the o ff

en s e would indicate beca use, af ter a ll, he was place d on probation both times, but th e fact re mains probation was r evoked be c a us e the d e fe nd ant h a s [an a lc oh ol] p ro ble m w hic h h e ha s b e e n una ble to control over

the y ear s, and th at p roblem . . . ca uses re cidivism and perha ps ree ntry once de ported. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 2 L 1.2(b)( 1), if a “ defe ndant pre viously was de po rt e d, or

un lawf ull y re ma ine d in

the Un ite d St a te s, a ft e r . . . a con vi cti on for a fe lony that is
. . . a cr ime of violence , . . . [t hen] in cr ea s e b y 16 levels . . . .” U .S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §2L 1.2(b)( 1) (2004) . The Sentenc ing Guidelines i n clude ag g ravated assault in the definition of “c rime of violenc e.” Id . §2L 1.2 cmt. n.1(B )(iii). De fe ndant did not dispute at
se nte nc ing , nor do e s h e dis pute in t his a pp e a l, t hat he wa s c on vic te d o f a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult in 19 92 , o r t

hat th is c on vic tio n c on sti tut e s a c ri me of viol ence un de r t

he a pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s.5

“[T] he Sentenc ing Guidelines do not aff ord the district cour t an y discretion to depa rt downwa

rd under U SSG § 2L 1.2(b)( 1)(A) (ii).” United States v. Ib arra-Hernande z , 4 27 F .3 d 3 22 , 3 36 (6 th Cir. 2005). Def

endant ha s not rebutted the pr esumption that his sentence is re ason ab l e; the re fo re , w e a ff

ir m th e de c isi on

of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. B. Disparity With Fast- Track Distric ts Next, Defenda

nt argues the district cour t unrea sonably

ref used to sentenc e him below the Gu ideline s r ang e ba se d o n th e dif fe re nc e s b e tw e e n h is s e nte nc e and se nte nc e s o f s imi larl y sit ua te d d e fe nd ants in f

a st- tr a c k ju

ri sd ic tio ns . F ast -t ra c k p ro g ra

ms w e re fi rs t c re a te d to e a se the burd e n in so me dis tr ic ts d e a lin g wi th ill e g a l r e -e ntr

y c a se s. Pr ima

ri ly the se dis tr ic ts w e re loc a te d o n the Me xica n b or de r, and

ty pic a lly a lar g e number

of illeg al re -entry

case s. The hig h volume o f i l l ega l re-entry case s strained fac iliti es as ther e wa s n ot enoug h space to house defe ndants and a shortag e of pr osecutors. To alleviate the problem, prose cutors in fa st-trac k districts have a greed to signific antly reduc ed sentenc es in exchang e for prompt g uilty

pleas. This pr o ce d ure r equire s the defe ndant to enter into a plea ba

rg ain with the g overnme nt and forf eit the rig ht to appeal or

collater ally

attack the conviction. The pur

pose of f ast-tra ck prog ra ms is to facilitate quick and e asy dispositi on of
case s to reduce the burde ns they impose in those districts. The Southern District of Ohio has not implemented a f

ast-tra ck prog ram. Th is C ourt

ha s h e ld t

hat th e e xiste nc e of

fa st- tr a c k p ro g ra

ms d oe s n ot r e nd e r dis par a te sentenc es outside of fa st-trac k jurisdictions unreaso n ab l e. See Un ite d S tates v . H

e rn an dezFierros , 453 F.3d 309, 314 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (holding se ntencingdisparit y betwee n fast-tra ck dis tr ic t and

no n fas t- tr a c k d istri c t “ do e s n ot r un c ounte r t o § 35 53 (a )’ s in str uc tio n to a vo id
unne c e ssa

ry se nte nc ingdis pa

ri tie s” ); Un ite d S

tates v . Cont

re ra s- Ar me nd ar iz , No. 05-5483, 20066

WL 34 8 8 7 8 4 , a t * 3 ( 6 th Ci r . D e c . 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( u np u b li s h e d o p in io n ) ( h o ld in g th e d is tr ic t court’s ref usal to sentence defe ndant as if f ast-tra ck sente nci n g was available in Ke ntucky did not render th e s e n te n c e u n r e a s o n a

b le ); s ee also United States v . Hernande z-Cervantes , 161 F. App’ x 508 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion) (holdingdefe n d an t ’s sentenc e wa s not render ed
unre a so na

ble by dis pa ri tie s b e tw e e n d e fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e and se nte nc e s r e c eiv ed b y

de fe nd ants in f a st- tr a c k ju

ri sd ic tio ns ); Un ite d St at es v. Lo uis , 185 F. App’ x 500 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion) (holding defe ndant’s sente nce w as not rende red unreasona ble by district
c ourt ’s fa ilure to c on sid e r t he dis pa ri ty c re a te d b y

the la c k o f a fa st- tr a c k s e nte nc ingsc he me in the district). De fenda

nt has not rebutted the pr esumption that his sentence is re asonable

.

C. Disparity Within District L astly , Def

endant c ontends his sentence i s u n reasonable be cause the district court ref used to sentenc e him below the Guide lines rang e ba s ed o n differ ence s betwee n his sentence and sente nces of

other illeg al aliens within the Southern District of O hio. I n support of his reque st for a se ntence below the advisory sentenc e ca lculated usingthe Guideli n es , Defendant submitted cer tain statistical data. The district court ca ref ully considere d the s tati s ti c s , b u t u lt im a te ly d e c id e d th a t “ [t ]h e u s e o f s tati s ti c s to s h o w a d is p ar it y w ithin the discretion of this Court . . . does not satisfy this Court t hat either

a de p arture from the a dvisory sentenc ing guideline ra

ng e or a sentenc e below that range
. . . s hould be orde red f or this rea son.” The district cour

t’s consideration of the st at i s t i cs wa s not unreasona ble. Def endant’ s sentencing data f or “Immigration Offense s,” which inc ludes the m ean a nd median sente nce, is c omposed of sentenc es for all

immigration offense s, not solely 8 U.S.C. § 1326 o ff

en s es . The “ I mmigration Ca te g or y ” in D e fe nd ant’ s stati st ical d a ta is c omp os e d o f a

ho dg e po dg e of

se nte nc e s f

ro m a ll immigration statutes.I n a dd iti on to t he a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult c on vic tio n g ivi ngri se to t he 16 -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt, 3 Def endant ha s been c onvicted of dr iving with a suspe nded license , failure to identify (for providing police with a f

ictitious name), assault, and twic e for driving under the influence

. Def endant initially

rec eived pr obation for most of these convictions, but probation sentenc es we re late r r e vo ke d, in p art , d ue to D e fe nd ant’ s f

a ilure to atte nd

a lc oh ol t re a tme nt a

nd his positive urine test for c ocaine

. 7 “Unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the need to avoid sentencingdisparit y i s o nly one of the fac tors that a district cour t should consider in determ i n i ng an appr opriate se ntence .” He rn an dezF i erros , 4 5 3 F
. 3 d a t 3 1 3 ( h o l d i n g n o e r r o r w h e n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt b a l an c e d t h e ne e d to a vo id sentenc ing dispa

rities wit h the nee d to protect the public a nd impress upon defe ndant the imp or tanc e of ob e yinglaws ); s ee a l

s o Hernande

z-Cervantes , 161 F. App’ x at 508 (unpublished opinion) (holding no e rror when district cour

t did not reduce defe ndant’s re entry of alien sentenc e bec ause of

sentenc ing dispa

rity when c ourt also consider ed the se riousness of the offe nse, dete rre nce to c riminal conduct, a nd need to pr otect the public)

. Th e d i s trict court c are fully considere d all of De fenda nt’s arguments for a

depar ture a nd weig hed them in light of the sentenc ing f

actor s set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court d i s cu ssed the nee d for the se ntence imposed to refle ct the ser iousness of the off ense, promote re spect for

the law, a dequate ly

af fo rd deterre nce to this particula r def endant’ s criminal
c on du c t, t a ke int o c on sid e ratio n th e pu bli c ’s ne e d f

or sa fe ty , a nd pr ov ide just pu nishm e nt. Th is inc lud e d D e fenda

nt’ s h ist or

y of vio le nt o ff

e ns e s, pr ob le ms w ithre c idi vis m, a nd ho w tho se fac tor s d i s t i ng uished him from other similarly situated defe ndants who had r ece ived downwa rd depar tures. The district cour t also considere d the goal of pr oviding De fenda nt with needed 3 treatment or ca

re in the most ef

fec tive manner

available to an illeg al alie n . Fur ther, the district
c ourt c on sid e re d se nte nc ing dis pa ri ty , statin g , “ a s fa

r a s dis pa

ri ty , a s fa

r a s tr e a tin g th is defe ndant unre asonably

from other

defe ndants who have committed s i m i l ar crimes with similar8

backg rounds, the Court believe s it has cover ed that as thoro u gh ly as it can. The Court sees no
unrea sonable dispar ity .” Def endant ha s not rebutted the pr esumption that the 40-month sentence was re asonable

. IV. Conclusion Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the se nte nc e of the dis tr ic t c ourt
.