## 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. 10

- 3042 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J UAN P. L UA -G UI Z AR, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10 CR 71

— George W. Lindberg, Judge .
A RG UE D M AY 31, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 26, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d W OO D a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e . Afte r J uan Lu a- Gu i zarpl eaded gui l ty to re enter i ng the U ni ted S tat es unlawfully f ol l owing h is rem ova l, he a ske d the di str i ct j ud ge to i m pose a s en tence wellbel ow the r ange advi sed by th e se nt en cingg ui d el i ne s. Lua

- Gui za rg av e two a r g um ents i n f avo r ofthi s down w ar d adj ustm ent: (1 ) that hi s “c ul tu r ala ss i m i lation, ” as c o nt empl at ed i n a the n-2 N o. 10

- 3042 p en d in g a m en d m en t t o th e g u id elin es , m ad e h im eligib le for a lo w erse ntence; and ( 2) thata l i ghterse ntence w as ne cess ary to avoid an “un w arran ted sent en cing d ispa ri ty ” ba se d upo n the f ac t th athe was c o nv i ct ed i n a dist ri ct without a “f ast
- tr ack” pro gr am thatwould have gi ven hi m the opportunity t o re cei ve a l i ghterse ntence in exc ha ng e for w a iv in g certain rights. Th e d istri ct cou rt was no t per su ade d b y the se po i nt s an d i m po se d a s en te n c e a t t h e b ot t o m o fth e g u id elin es ran ge . On ap p ea l, Lu a- Gu i zarargu es thatthe dist ri ct c ourtco m m i tte d proce du ra ler ro r i n so r uling. W e fi nd nothi ng am i ss, h o we v e r, a n d s o w e a ffi r m.

I Lu a- Gu i zarfi rs t e nter ed the U ni ted S tat es fro m M exico as a three

- yea r- ol d; he gr ew up i n Los An gel es, Cali f or ni a. A s a te enage r, Lua-Guiz arm et hi s no w - f or m er w i fe, I rm a Gonzal ez, with whom he ha s three da ughter s. In Janu ar y 2 001, so m e t i m e a fterhi s di vor ce, LuaG uizar w as arrested f or the i m p ortation an d sale ofa s i g n i f i c an t a m ou n t o f co c ain e. St ill in 20 01 an d w h ile out on ba i l, Lua-Guiz arwas tw ice ar re ste d near Los A ngel es f ordri vi ng o n a s uspend ed orr evo ked l i cense. H e was pl aced o n prob at ion fo r each dr i vi ng o ffense. A fter being pu ll ed over f or f ail in g to signal in Jan ua ry 20 02 , Lu a - Gu i z a rc o n s e n t e d t o a s e a r c h o fh i s c a r ; i n t he cour se ofthat sea rch, m or e coca i ne tur ned up

. Lua-Guiz ar ple aded gui l ty to posse ssing a sm al l“ perso naluse” quanti ty ofco cai ne and r ecei ved pro bati on a fte r 10 days o fi m pr i so nm ent. In Aug us t 20 02 , Lua

- Gui za rwas c o n-N o. 10

- 3042 3 vi cted o fthe 2001 i m port ati on a nd sa l e charg e, f orwh i ch he was sent enced to thr ee yea rs o fi m pri sonm ent. Befo re L ua- Gu i zarco uld co m ple te hi s s entence , he was r emov ed to M ex i co i n May 2 00 4. Le ss tha n a m o nth l at er, Lua

- Gui za rr etur ne d t o Lo s Ange l es wi th

o uta utho r i za ti o n, pr i m ar i l y t o t ak e ca r e o fhi s daugh ters ( who wer e ei ght, nine , a nd 1 0 y ea r s o l d a t th e ti m e) , o ne ofwh om h as cer ebr alpal sy. Fo l l owing yetano ther tr affi c st op, Lua

- Gui za rwas de po r te d i n 2 00 7; a g ain h e re turned unlawful l y i n 2008
. This ti m e, Lua-Guiz ar m ove d to Ch i cago , w h ere he w as eve ntual l y a rr est ed f orposses sio n ofco cai ne i n Decem bero f20 09. Though that charg e was l ate r dism i sse d, Lua-Guiza r adm i ts that he u sed co ca i ne tha t day

. The a r r es t al so a l er te d the au th o r iti es t o Lua

- Gui za r ’ s unl awfulpr es en ce i n the U nited St ates an d l ed to an ind ictm en t for il legal reen try in viol ation of 8 U

. S. C
. § 1326(a). L u a - Gu i z a r p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o th e c h a r g e a l l e g e d i n t he i nd i ctm en t, w i th a ple a a gr eem ent under w hi ch he pr eser ved hi s r i ght t o chal l enge h is convi cti on a nd se ntence on ap p ea l. H is p re se n te n c e in ve st iga tio n rep or t p u t h is offen se level at 21 an d his crim inal history at category I I I
. Thi s y i el ded an a dvis or y guid elines r ange of46 to 57 m o nths

. In r es po ns e, Lua

- Gui za roffe r ed two r ea so ns w hy the j ud g e s ho ul d i mpo s e a l i g ht e r s e nt e nc e o f 24 m on th s. F i r st, Lua- Gui za r po i nt ed to th e th en - pen di ngg ui del i ne am en d m en t au th orizi ng district cou rts t o cons ider a do wnw ar d a dj us tmento fo ffen se l ev elb as ed o n a de fen d a n t ’s “ c u ltu ra l as sim ilat ion .” U .S.S.G . § 2L 1.2 cm t. n .84 N o. 10

- 3042 ( 2010 ) ; se e Am endm ent 740, effecti ve N ov. 1, 20 10. S uch a m ove i s a pp ro pr iate wh er e ( 1) the defe nd ant has form ed cultu r a l ties i n th e U nited States by li ving h ere sinc e ch i l dho o d, ( 2) tho se c ul tu r al ti es mot i va te d the illeg al r e e n t ry , an d (3) th e d ow n w ar d ad j u st m en t w ill not i ncre ase the ri sk to the publ i c fro m furthercr i m es by the defendant. U
. S. S. G. § 2 L1.2 cm t. n. 8. Lua-Guiz ar note d that he has been i n the U ni ted S tat es si nce he w as a t oddlerand that he r etur ned to the Unite d Sta te s a fter hi s r em ov als to car e forhi s y oung daughter s. The r i sk of hi s i l l ega l l y r eente ring ag ai n, Lua-Guiz ar u rg ed, was si gni fi cantly lo w ernow that hi s daughter s were ol der (the girl s w ere 14, 15, and 16 at t h e t im e o f sen ten cing). L ua -Gu izar al so p rovide d an a ff id avit fr om his si ster, w h o s aid th at sh e h a d b ot h a j ob an d a p lac e t o s ta y in M ex ico f or her broth er. N one th eless, th e district cou rt d ec lin ed to ad j u st h is s en te n c e d ow n w a r d o n th is b as is because A m endm ent 740 w as sti l lpending and because th e c ou rtc o ns i der ed Lua- Gui za rt o b e a r i skt o the pu bl i c i n l i ght o fhi s cr i m i nalpast. S e co nd , L u a - Gu i z a ra r g u e d th a th e d e s e r v e d a b e l o wgu idelines sen ten ce in order to rem ed y an all eged “un w arra nted dis pari ty, ” s ee 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) ( 6) , betw een hi ms e l fa n d o th e rd e fe n d a n t s c o n v i c t e d o fu n l awful re entr y b ut pro secute d i n federa ldi str i cts

— l i k e t he So uthe rn Dis tr i ct o fCal i f or ni a, wh er e Lua- Gu i zargr ew up

— th atus e “f as t tr ac k ” pr o g r ams. Unders ucha p r o g r a m, a de fe n d a n t ’ s o ffe n s e l e v e lma y mo v e d o wn as much a s f o url ev el s i fhe a g r ee s to wai ve , a m o ng othe r thi ngs, his ri ght t o chal l enge hi s co nvi cti on e i ther on ap p ea l or inco llat er al p ro c ee d in gs . See U .S.S.G . § 5K 3.1N o. 10

- 3042 5 (20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. R eyes-H erna nd ez , 62 4 F
. 3d 40 5, 40 9- 11 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ). A t t h e t i m e o f L u a-G u iza r’s se n te n c in g, th e la w of th is ci rcui t pr ohibi ted j ud ges fr om co nsi deri ng the di spari ty cau s e d b y the ab s e nc e o f a f a s t
- t r a c k pr o g r a m. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gal i ci a- Card e nas , 44 3 F
. 3d 553, 55 5 ( 7th C ir. 2006) (pe rc uriam ). L u a-G u iza r n ev er th ele ss p ro p er ly pr es er ve d this po i ntwi tha n a r g um en t th atthe ho l di ng of K im bro ug h v . U ni t e d Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 85 (2007), ap p li ed equ all y to thi s circum stan ce. Th e d istri ct cou rt decl i ne d t o t a k e thi s f a c t o ri nt o a c c o un tf o rthr ee r ea so ns : fi r st, i t th ou gh t tha t an y di spa r i tywas no t “u nw ar ra nted, ” be cause Congre ss anti ci pated differ ences amongdi str i ct s; s ec o nd, i t no te d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t had notde mon s t r a t e d i t s wi l l i ngne s s t o mo v e f o ra de

partur e a s r equi re d by s ecti on 5 K 3. 1; and final l y, ev en ass um in g d iscr eti on under the gui del i nes, i t found that th e gui del i nes r ange w as “perf ectl y s uit abl e t o M r . Lua-Gu iz ar ’ s o ffen se s an d hi s cr i m i na lhi st o r y . ” The di s t r i c tc o u r tth e n s e n t e n c e d L u a - Gu i z a rt o 4 6 mo nt hs

— the b o t t o m o fthe g ui de l i ne s r a ng e . T hi s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

II Lu a- Gu i zarco nti nu es to pursue hi s cul tura las si m i l ati on a nd f ast
- tr ack ar gum ents on a p p eal

. In each i n st an c e, he a sse rt s that the di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d proce du ra ler ro r

— a ma tt er t h a twe r e v i e w deno vo . U nite d States v. O lm eda-Ga rc ia , 613 F.3d 72 1 , 7 23 (7th C ir. 2 0 1 0 )
. A s e nt e nci ng j ud g e mus tfi r s tc a l c ul a t e the a ppli cabl e guidel i nes r ange, then apply the § 3 553( a) f acto rs ,6 N o. 10

- 3042 and final l y a rr i ve at a r eas onabl e s en tence
. S ee Gall v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S. 38 , 50-5 1 (2 00 7); U nited Sta tes v. Figue r oa , 6 2 2 F
. 3 d 73 9 , 74 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 010 ). A pro cedural er ro r oc c u rs , for ex am p le, w h en th e d i s t ric t c ou rtfails to cal cul ate the propergui del i nes r ange, tr eat s the gui deline s as m an d atory, bases its sente nc e on clearly err o ne o us f ac ts , f ai l s ad eq uate l y t o c o ns i derthe s en te nc i ng f ac to r s se t o uti n § 3 55 3( a) , o rpr o vi des an i ns uffi ci en t e x p lan at ion of its se n te n c in g d ec isio n . G all , 55 2 U.S
. at 51; se e U nited St a t e s v . A lja ba ri, 62 6 F
. 3d 940, 95 0 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10). To pr ovi de an expl anati on that dem onst ra tes adequate co nsi deration o fthe § 3 553( a) f acto rs , a dist ri ct cou rt m ust s ay enough t o al l ow m eani ngful appell ate re vi ew , but i t nee d not m enti on e ver y s i ngl e f acto r, so l ong as w e have confi dence thatthe sente nci ng pro cess w as f ai r. S ee G a l l, 552 U
. S. at50; Figue r oa , 62 2 F
. 3d at 744. Each case is di ffer ent, however, and the “am ount o f ex pl an at i o n n ee ded i n anypar ti cul arcas e de pen ds o n the ci rcum sta nces. ” U nite d States v. C urby, 595 F .3d 79 4, 79 7 ( 7t h C ir. 2010) ; se e R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 55 1 U.S
. 33 8, 357 (2007 ). H er e, b efo r e co ns i der i ngLua

- Gui za r ’ s r ea so ns for a l i ghterse ntence, t h e d i str i ct c ourtcar efully a nal yze d each o fhi s pri orcr i m es, so m e o fwh i ch Lua-Guiz ar w an ted to excl ud e forse ntenci ng purpose s. Fo r the c ocai ne- re l ate d offenses, the cour t a cknowle dged that Lu aGui za rwas m ore l i k ely a n a ddi cttha n a s er i o us dr ug d ea ler . Sti l l, the cour t was “no t co nvi nced that the s ubst an ce abu se p r o bl em m i ti g at e[ d] the g r av i ty ” o fthe 2001 an d 2 0 0 2 c o nv i c t i o ns , b e c a us e the o nly thingthat see m ed to end Lua-Guiz ar ’ s co cai ne use w as i ncarc er a-N o. 10

- 3042 7 ti o n. T akingtha t i nt o a cc o unt, the c o ur t f o und Lu a- Gu i zarto be “at a hi gh r i sk ofr etur ni ng to the use ofi l l ega ldrugs at such ti m e a s he i s r el eas ed fro m custo d y.” T h e d ist ric t c ou rtac kn o w l e d ge d th at h is t ra ffic o ffe n s e s we r e “ c o n s i d e r ab l y l e s s s e r i o u s th a n th e t wo drug- relate d cri m es, ” but not so i nsi gni fi cant that th ey co u ld be “ig n o r e d in s en te n c in g.” T h is a n aly sis pr o v i de d the b a c k dr o p f o rthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s r e s po nse to both ofthe re aso ns Lua-Gui zaro ffer ed i n supp or t o f a low er ed offe n se lev el. On the cul tura las si m i l ati on point, Lua-Guiz arar gues that the c ourti nadequ ate l y e x p lain ed i ts re aso ns f ornot g i v i n gh i m t h e d o wn wa r d a dj u s t me n t
. T h e r e c o r d , h o weve r, does notbea r thi s ou t. The j ud ge expla i ned that “[t]he C ou rt de cli ne s to cons ider M r . L ua -Gu izar’s cul tu r ala ss i m i l at i o n t o l o werhi s s en te nc e. F i r st, the am en d m en t w il l not go in t o e ffect u nt ill ater th is year. Se cond, the dow nw ar d dep ar ture i s a uth or ize d onl y i fi t, quote, i s no t l i kel y t o i ncre ase the ri sk to th e p ubl i c o f fu rt h er cr im es of th e d efe n d an t, en d qu ot e .” V iew ed in cont ext, thi s e xplanat i on was suffi ci ent. The fi rs t re aso n re l ate s d i re ctl y to § 3553( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( i i ) , w hi ch dir ects j ud ges to applythe gui del i nes “ i n effect on the date the defendant i s s entence d.” S ee U nite d S ta te s v. B aretz , 41 1 F.3d 86 7, 87 4 (7th C ir. 20 05 ). W h ile th e co u r t co u ld have consi dered the pending am endm ent, i t was not re quir ed to do s o. I t thu s c om m itte d no pro ceduraler ro r bya ppl y i ngthe g ui del i ne s i n e ffec t atthe tim e o fs en tencing. The seco nd r eas on co m es d i re ctl y fro m the l anguage ofthe then- pend i ng am endm ent:8 N o. 10

- 3042 T he re m ay be cas es in w hich a dow nw ard de p a rtu re m ay b e app ro pri ate o n the basi s o fcul tura las si m i l atio n . Su c h a d ep ar tu re sh ou ld be co n sid er ed on ly in case s where ( A ) the defe nd ant for m ed cul tura lti es pri m ar i l y with the U ni ted S tat es fr om having r esi ded c o nt i nu o us l y i n the Uni t e d S t a t e s fr o m ch i l dh o o d, ( B) those cul tura lti es provi ded the pri m ar y m oti vati on f orthe defe nd ant’ s i l l ega lreentry orco nti nued p resen ce in th e U nited States, and ( C ) such a d epa rture i s no tl i ke l y t o i nc r e as etherisk to thepu b l i c f r om f ur t he rc r i m e s of

thede f e ndan t
. U .S.S.G . § 2L 1.2 cm t. n .8 (20 10 ) (em p h as is a d d ed ). E ve n if the a m endm ent ha d take n effect, the cour t would have been obl i ged to co nsi der subpart ( C), wh i ch w e hav e em p h as ize d . A n d it ap p e ar s t h at th is is e x ac tly w h at it d id. Th e cou rt exp lai ne d that, i n li gh t o f L ua -Gu izar’s tr ac kr ec o r d, i t f o und u npers ua si ve hi s ar g um en t th athe w as unli kel y t o re ci diva te. U si ng the s am e r i skba se d l an g ua g e as the pe ndi nga ppl i ca ti o n n o te , the dist ri ct c ourtsa i d that i t was unconvinc ed that LuaGu i zarwo u l d not a gain re turn t o coca i ne use, wh i ch h e h ad d on e e ve n u p to th e d ay o f h is fin al a rre st in 2009
. In a d d iti on, the appli cati on not e furtheradvi ses a se nt en cingc o ur t to c ons i derthe “ se r i o us ne ss o fthe def en dan t’ s cr i m i na l hi st o r y , ” an d “ whet he r t he defe nd ant e n gaged i n additi onalcr i m i nalact i vi ty after i l l ega l l y r eente ring the U ni ted S tat es. ” Id. The dis tr i ct c ou rtd id all th at h er e. W e fin d n o p ro c ed u ra l err or in i ts a ppr oach to Lua

- Gui za r ’ s cul tu r ala ss i m i l at i o n a r g um ent.N o. 10

- 3042 9 That l eave s hi s a rgum ent b ase d on the non- exi ste nce ofa f ast
- tr ack proce du re i n the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f I l l i noi s. H i s ba si c poi nt was thatthe d ist ri ct c ourtf ai l ed to g i ve thi s ar g um en t ade qua te co ns i der at i o n. Gi ve n the l engthy disc ussi on of the i ssue by the dist ri ct c ourt, wh i ch quo te d di r ec tly fr o m s ec ti o n 5 K3. 1, i t i s pl ain tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtdi d not o ve rlook thi s a rgum ent. W hat LuaGui za ri s r ea l l y sa y i ng, we be l i ev e, i s th atthe c o ur t m i su nd er st oo d its d isc re tio n to m ak e a dj u st m en ts on th is b as is

— a point thatwas not cl earatthe tim e of LuaGu i z a r ’ s s e nt e nc i ng . Co m pare Sp ears v . U nited Sta tes, 12 9 S. C t. 84 0 (2 00 9); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cor ner, 5 98 F. 3d 411, 415 (7th Cir. 2010) ( e n b anc ) ( hol ding th at “d i str i ct j ud ges a re a t liber ty to rej ect any Gui del i ne o n pol i cy g r o un ds

— th o ug h the y musta ctr ea so nabl y w he n us i ng th atpo wer ”) , wi th Gali cia -C a r de nas , 4 4 3 F
. 3 d a t5 5 5 ( l i miti ng a district j ud ge’s discret ion). Fas t- tr ack proce du re s are n ot avai l abl e in eve rydi str i ct; Con g r es s ha s i ns te ad m ade the i ra va i l ab i l i ty co nt i ng en t up on a pp ro valby the A tto rneyGenera l

. S ee Pro secuto ri al Rem edi es and Tool s Agai nst t h e Explo i tat i on o fChil dren Today A ct o f20 03, Pub. L. N o. 10 8- 21 , § 4 01(m ) , 11 7 S tat
. 650, 675. The A tto rn ey G ener alm ust desi gnate a j ud i ci al d ist ric t fo r a s p ec ific c rim e, an d s u c h a d es ign at ion is r es er ve d f o r o ffen se s “who se hi g h i nc i den ce wi th in the dist ri ct has im p os ed an ext ra or dinar y s tr ai n on the r eso u rc es of th at d ist ric t a s c om p ar e d t o o th er d ist ric ts .” H
. R. Re p. No
. 1 0 8

- 4 8 , a t 7 ( 2 0 0 3 )
. M o s t f a s t
- t r a c k pr ogr am s hav e be en autho ri zed f or“i l l eg al r eentry a fter deporta ti on, ” a nd al lo thercr i m es that ar e a llowed to r e c e i v e f a s t
- t r a c kdi s po s i t i o n a r e i mm i g r a t i o n- r e l a t e d.10 N o. 10

- 3042 See M em oran d um from Da vid O gd en, D e p ut y A tt’y G e n., De p ’t ofJ us tice, to U
. S. A ttorn eys (M ay 29, 2009), re pri nted i n 21 F ED . S EN T . R EP . 318, 33 7- 38 ( J une 200 9)
. Yet ev en in a fas t-t ra c k d ist ric t, t h e d ow n w ar d d ep ar tu re is n ot auto m ati c. The r equest f ora re du ced se ntence m ust be made “[ u] po n mot i o n ofth e G o ve r nm en t, ” an d the d ist ric t c ou rtis n o t r e q u ire d to gra n t s u c h a re q u es t if i t co ns i der s th e r edu ct i o n t o b e i na ppr o pr i at e g i ve n the f acts of a pa r ti cul arc as e. U. S
. S
. G. § 5 K3. 1 ( 20 09 )
. The N or ther n Dis tr ict ofI l l i noi s, wh er e Lua- Gu i zarwas co nv i ct ed, doe s no t ha ve an e ar l y di spo si ti o n pr o g r am, a nd th er e a re n on e in th e Se ve n th C irc u it. Se e O gd en , sup ra , at 33 7-3 8; R ey e s-Herna nd ez , 62 4 F
. 3d at 412. Fo r these reaso ns, the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on has r eco gni zed th at tr e a tin g d efe n d an ts d iffer en tly on th e b as is of t h eir g eo g r aph y a l o ne

— a m or al l y a rbi tr ar y f acto r

— ha s th e potenti alto cr eat e unw ar ra nted sent enci n g d i spari ti es und er§ 3553 ( a) ( 6)
. S ee R eyes-H erna nd ez , 62 4 F
. 3d at 410- 11 (citation om itted ). As we m ent i o ne d, a t th e ti m e Lua- Gui za rwas s en tence d th e l aw o fthi s ci rcui t pr ohibi ted a dist ri ct cour t fro m co ns ideri ng the l ack ofa f ast
- tr ack opti on a n “unw ar ra nted sent enci ng di spari ty” under § 3553 ( a) ( 6) because , i n set ti ng up the s yst em o fdi str i ct-b y- dist ri ct author i zati on, Congr ess co ntem p lated the di spari ty base d up on g eog ra phy, wh i ch w e r ea soned p re cl ud ed a fi nd i ng tha t s uch a di spari ty i s “ unw ar ra nted. ” Gali ci aCard e nas , 443 F.3d at 554

. In li gh t of Kim b r ough , Sp ears , a nd C o rner, we swi tc hed c ou r se i n R eyes-H erna nd ez , an d h eld th at se n te n c in g c ou rt s m ay co n s i d er th e d isp ar ity in ap p l i cabl e guidel i nes r anges betw een s i m i l ar l y s i tuate dN o. 10

- 3042 11 defen dan ts i n di st r i ct s wi tha f as t- tr ac kpr o g r am an d dist ri cts w i thout a f ast
- tr ack prog ra m . 62 4 F
. 3d at 416- 17; see al so U nited Sta tes v. G uaj a r d o - M a rtinez , 63 5 F
. 3d 1056 , 1062 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. W e e xplaine d further w hat k i nd o f sh ow in g w ou ld be n ec es sa ry in o u r re c en t d ec isio n in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa ndov al Ram i r ez, N os. 09

- 3932 , 10

- 2190 , 10

- 2689 , 2011 W L 28644 17, a t* 5 -* 9 ( 7th Cir. J uly 20, 2011). H er e i s th e su m m ary o fo urc o nc l us i o n: [ A] defen dan t claimi nge nt i tl ementt o a l o wers en tence bec ause ofa perce i ved f ast- tr ack “dis pari ty” m ust 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 ro fs pec ifi c r i g ht s be f o r e o rdur i ng the pl e a c o l l o qu y, e s t ab l i s h tha t he wo ul d r e c e i v e a f as t- tr ac ks en te nc e i n a t l ea sto ne dist r i cto ffer i ng th e pr o g r am, a nd s ubmi t a th o r o ug h accou nt o fthe l i k ely i m pr i so nm en t r an g e i n the di st r i ct s wher e he i s e l i g ib l e , a s w e l la s a c a n d i d a s s e s s me n to fth e n u mbero fpro gr am s forwh i ch he would notqual i fy. Id. a t* 9
. We r e c o g n i z e th a tth i s a p p r o a c h ma y b e i n s o me te ns i o n wi th, and mor e ex te ns i ve tha n, the s ho wi ng re q u ire d in o th er circ u its . See , e . g. , U nite d S t at e s v. A rrel ucea-Zam dio , 58 1 F
. 3d 142, 15 6- 57 & n. 13 ( 3d Cir

. 20 09) ( hol ding that defe nd ant nee d onl y o fferto ac cept a ple a a gr eem ent for fei ti ng ri ghts as i fin a fast

- tr ack dist ri ct an d refusing to requ ire “a m or e ext en sive show ing”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rodr igu ez , 5 27 F. 3d 221, 23 1 ( 1stCi r. 20 08) ( hol ding that a defendant “cannotbe expected to r eno unc e hi s r i g htt o mounta de fen se ” bya ctua l l y wai ving hi s r i ghts i n or der t o d em onst ra te a pos sibl e f ast
- tr ack12 N o. 10

- 3042 d isp ar ity ). W e n ee d n ot, ho w ev er , res olv e t h is t en sio n in o r d er to d isp os e o f th is a p p ea l. A t a m in im u m , S a ndov al R a m irez sheds l i ght on wh en a dist ri ct c ourtm i ght b e at ri sk ofabusing i ts disc re ti on w h en it rej ects a f ast
tr a c k a r g ume nt
. I n the e nd , thi s i s a di s c r e t i o na r y f acto r l i ke m any o th er s. N othing pre vents a dist ri ct c ourtfro m fi nd i n g, as Congr ess di d, that geo gr aphica ldi spari ty al one i s not a com pel l i ng re aso n to tr eat al ld efendants as i ftheywere i n f ast
- tr ack dist ric ts. S ee R eyes-H erna nd ez , 62 4 F .3d at42 1. The dis tri ct c ourther e di d a r em ar kably g oo d j ob w i th thi s a rgum ent, co nsi deri ng the unsettled state o f th e l aw a t th at time. I t ex pl i ci tly a ckno wl edg ed th e pr emi se o f Lua- Gui za r ’ s argum en t

— that “he s houl d be sente nced w i th som e re cogni ti on of the f ast tr ack j uri sdict i ons th at p rovi de f orl ower s entence s than hi s pro secuti on in thi s di str i ct” and w anted to “be se ntenced as if th is w er e a fas t t ra c k jur isd ict ion in o r d er to av oid a s entencingdi spari ty. ” The di str i ct c ourtthen re spo nde d t o Lua

- Gui za r ’ s ar g um en t w ith th r ee r ea so ns why i t wou ld no t g r an t hi s r eque st, b utthe fi na lo ne is d isp os itiv e: Thi r d, thi s Cou r t, whi le reco g ni zingtha t th e se nte n c in g gu id elin es ar e ad vis or y an d th at i t w o u ld have disc re ti on t o re du ce M r. Lua-Guiz ar ’ s s entence on thi s ba si s i fi t cho se to do so , doe s n ot bel i eve that M r. Lua-Guiz ar ’ s sen te nce s houl d be r educed i n re cogn itio n ofthe exi ste nce o fo therf asttr ack j ur i sdi ct i o ns . The c o ur t be l i ev es tha t th e se nt en cing ra n ge r ea c h ed b y th e u se o f t h e gu id elin es is p er fec tlyN o. 10

- 3042 13 sui tabl e t o M r. Lua-Guiz ar ’ s offenses and h i s cr i m i nal hi sto ry . This w as al lthe cour t nee d ed t o say. I t s peci fi cal l y r eco gni zed thati t had the di screti on t o depart fro m the gui deline s ifi t ch ose, bu t it foun d suc h a m o ve to be u nw arra nted. A s we have em p h as i zed, ev en i n a di str i ct with ane ar l y di spo si ti o n pr o g r am, a do wnw ar d a dj us tment i s no t a utom ati c, and a d efendant’s cr i m i nalhi sto ryi s a n ap p ro p ria te fac to r to co n sid er att h is jun c tu re . Guaj ar doM a rtinez , 63 5 F
. 3d at 106 2. The di str i ct c ourtco m m i tte d no error. Forthes e r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j ud g m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

8- 26- 11