T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A p ril24,2007 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. AR M ANDO B AR AJ AS - GAR CI A, a lso k n o w n a s A rm a n d o G a rc ia B ar aj as , al s o know n as M art i n N unez, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 1391 ( D. Ct . No . 0 6 - c r - 0 0 1 4 3 - LT B)

(D . C o lo .)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 .9 (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.-2-

A ppel l antA r m ando B ar aj as - G ar ci a pl ed gui l tyt o one countof i l l egal re e n tryo f

a d e p o rte d a lien p re v io u slyc o n v icte d o f a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n yin v io latio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ) a n d (b )(2 ). H e n o w a p p e a ls h is s e n ten c e , arg u in g : 1) i ti s unr eas onabl e w hen vi ew ed underthe 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) s ent enci ng fac t or s , and 2) a dow nw ar d departur e i s w arr ant ed underthe U ni t ed St at es S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s (“ G u id e lin e s” o r “ U .S .S .G .”). H e p re m ise s b o th a rg u m e n ts o n m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s in v o lv in g th e n e g lec t o f h is s o n b yh is s on’ s bi ol ogi cal m other , w hi ch M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a cont ends compel l ed hi s i l l egal r eturn t o the U ni t ed St at es . I n addi t i on, forthe purpos e of pr es ervi ng the i s s ue forfur therappea l , M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a cha l l enges thi s cour t ’ s deci s i on i n Uni t ed S ta tes v . Ma rtin ez-Tru jil lo , 46 8 F . 3d 12 66 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ), w hich holds a s ent ence i s notr ender ed unr eas onabl e i f a s ent enci ng courtdoes notcons i der di s par i t i es betw een de fenda nt s s ent ence d i n fas t - tr ack a nd non- fas t - tr ack pr ogr ams. W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m M r. B a raja s -G a rc ia ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound A ft erM r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a pl ed gui l ty , the pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eportcal cul at i ng hi s s ent ence underthe appl i cabl e G ui del i nes . T he p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e rs e th i s b a s e o ffe n s e l e v e l a te i g h tp u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2 L 1 . 2 ( a ) , i n c r e a s e d h i s b a s e l e v e l s i x t e e n l e v e l s p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G.-3-

§ 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) beca us e he pos s es s ed a pr i orfel onyconvi ct i on foraggr avat ed as s aul t , and r educe d hi s offe ns e l evel bythr ee l evel s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i typur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1, r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw en ty -on e. T h e p rese n tenc e re p o rtalso set M r. B arajas-G arc ia’s cri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryatI V , w hi ch, t ogetherw i th an offens e l evel of tw enty - one, r es ul t ed i n a r ecomm ended G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of fi fty - s even t o s eventy - one mont hs im p ri s o n m e n t.

M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a fi l ed a for m al w r i tt en obj ect i on t o the pr es ent ence rep o rt , req u esti n g a b elow -G u idelines sen tenc e p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a), bas ed on the natur e of the offens e and hi s hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs and the d isp a rityo f

h is s e n ten c e c o m p a re d w ith th o se re c e iv in g sh o rte r se n ten c e s in fa sttra c k p ro g ra m s u til ize d in o th e r d istric t co u rts. W ith re sp e c t to th e n a tu re o f h is o ffe n se , M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia a ss e rte d h e d id n o t il leg a llyre e n ter th e c o u n tryto comm i tfutur e cr i m es , butdue t o s afe tyconce rns forhi s s on, w hos e bi ol ogi cal m otherfai l ed t o adequa t el yfee d hi m , l efthi m al one, and us ed drugs w hi l e he w as i n hercar e. H e al s o cl ai m ed hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yw as over - r epr es ent ed, e x p lain in g : 1 ) h is p rio r a ss a u lt co n v ictio n in v o lv e d h is e x -w ife a n d w a s th e o n ly actof vi ol ence i n hi s otherw i s e pea cef ul l i fe; and 2) hi s l ar ge numberof dr i vi ngT he u nco ntes t ed p res entence reportfactual fi nd i ng s show M r. B araj as- 1 Ga r c i a wa s c o n v i c t e d o f s e v e n DUI - r e l a t e d o ffe n s e s : i n 1 9 8 9 , 1 9 9 1 , 1 9 9 2 ( two tim e s ), 1 9 9 4 (t w o tim e s ), a n d 2 0 0 3 . -4- u n d e r th e in flu e n c e (D U I) c o n v ictio n s ste m m e d f ro m d rin k in g in re sp o n se to h is 1 ex- w i fe’ s drug us e and w er e al l overt en y ear s ol d, w i th the exc ept i on of one 2003 convi ct i on, aft erw hi ch he c om pl et ed a tw enty - one- dayal cohol t r eatm ent p ro g ra m . A ts ent enci ng, M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a r enew ed the s ame obj ect i ons and re q u e ste d a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s-r a n g e se n ten c e b a se d o n th e se n ten c in g fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). H is c o u n se l als o e x p lain e d th a t an a d d iti o n a l fa m ilyre a so n fo r h is i l l egal r eturn t o t he U ni t ed St at es w as t o as s i s thi s comm on- l aw w i fe w i th her ad u lth an d icap p ed so n . In o p p o sit ion to M r. B arajas-G arc ia’s req u est fo r a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence , the governm entexpl ai ned hi s s ent ence w as notoutof the h eart l and of o ther cases, the g ov ernm ent pr eviousl ydep ort ed M r. B araj asG ar ci a on s i x otherocca s i ons , and M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a pos s es s ed a l engthy cr i m i nal hi s t ory . I tneverthel es s r eques t ed a s ent ence att he bot t om of the G u id e lin e s ra n g e a t fif ty-s e v e n m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t.

A ft er heari ng and con si deri ng t he p art i es’ argum ents , t he d i stri ctcou rtfi rs t r ej ect ed M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a’ s fas t - tr ack s ent enci ng cl ai m , expl ai ni ng i tw as p rec lud ed b ylaw . Itthen ad d resse d the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors, reco g n izi n g that M r.-5-

B ar aj as - G ar ci a’ s cl ai m of i l l egal r eentrydue t o hi s fami l yhar ds hi p m us tbe r evi ew ed i n l i ghtof § 3553( a) , butal s o r ecogni zi ng thatm os ti l l egal r eentr i es ste m f ro m a ra n g e o f

fa m ilyc o n sid e ra tio n s a n d se v e rities , inc lu d in g fa m ily s uppor t , car e foran el der l yr el at i ve, i l l nes s of fa m i l ym ember s , and t o be w i th a sp o u se . It th e n fo u n d n o th in g u n u su a l o r su fficie n tlyu n c o m m o n w ith re g a rd to M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a’ s fami l yci r cumst ance and thati tdi d not“trum p” the other § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . In addressi ng t he o ther fact ors, the d i stri ctcou rtexp l ai ned M r. B araj asG ar ci a’ s num er ous i l l egal r eentr i es i nt o thi s countrys how ed a s tr ong m ot i vat i on forhi m t o comm i ti l l egal r eentr yi n the futur e and ther efor e i m pl i cat ed the se n ten c in g fa c to r o f

d e ter re n c e f

ro m c o m m itt in g f

u rth e r c rim in a l co n d u c t. W ith re sp e c t to h is c rim in a l h isto ry , the d istric t co u rt n o ted M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia pos s es s ed tw o pr i orvi ol entfel oni es and numer ous D U I convi ct i ons ; hi s habi tual traffi c offenses w ere s i gn i fi cant gi ven drunk dri vers ki l l peo ple; and his m ost r ece ntD U I convi ct i on, s t emm i ng fr om conductoccurr i ng on A ugus t8, 2003, su g g e ste d h e re tain e d a d rin k in g p ro b lem a lth o u g h h e m ig h t h a v e tak e n ste p s to ad d ress it . W ith resp ec t t o rec idivism co n ce rns, th e d istri ct co u rtex p lai n ed M r. B a r aj a s - G a r c i a ’ s r e e n tr y i n t o t h i s c o u n try, t o g e th e rw i th h i s p a s tc r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, i ndi cat ed the s er i ous nes s of hi s offe ns e and hi s di s r es pectforthe l aw . B as ed on its c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ), th e d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t a-6-

sen tenc e a t th e b o tt o m o f th e G u idelines ran g e w as a n ap p rop ri ate se n tenc e in M r. B a raja s -G a rc ia ’s c a s e a n d s e n te n c e d h im to fif ty-s e v e n m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t.

I I . D i s cus s i on A . U nr eas onabl enes s of Sent ence B as ed on

Fam i l yC i r cumst ance O n appea l , M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a ar gues the G ui del i nes r ange i m pos ed w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e the di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed t o “ac cor d adequa t e w ei ghtt o the fa ct th at [M r. B arajas-G arc ia] reen tered the c o u n tryo u t of fe ar fo r his ch il d ’s s afe ty . ” H e cont ends hi s i l l egal r etur n t o thi s countryoutof conc ern forthe phy s i cal s afe tyof hi s chi l d w as “s epar at e” f r om and “farabove c oncerns for s uppor t i ng a fa m i l y , ” and ther efor e, the di s tr i ctcourterr oneous l ygave “ m i ni m al w e ig h t to th is fa c to r.” W h ile M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia a d m its h e p re v io u slyf ra m e d h is r eques tfora bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence as a var i ance under§ 3553( a) bas ed on th e n a tu re a n d c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e o ffe n se , h e su g g e sts th a t o n a p p e a l w e sh o u ld appl ythe l aw us ed i n pr e- B ookerd o w n w ard d ep arture c ase s fo r ex tr ao rdin ary fami l yci r cumst ance s forthe purpos e of r educi ng hi s s ent ence . I n s o doi ng, he r el i es on cas es i nvol vi ng ourpr e- B ookerc o n s id e ra tio n o f U .S .S .G . § 5 H 1 .6 re la tin g to fa m ily tie s a n d re s p o n s ib iliti e s . W e begi n ourdi s cus s i on bycl ar i fy i ng thata s ent ence above orbel ow the1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) p rov ides , in p art, the c o u rtsh all co n side r: 2 ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t or yand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; (2) the n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed -- ( A ) t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the offens e, t o pr om ot e r es pect forthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entfort he offens e; (B ) to a ffo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; (C ) to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothercorr ect i onal tr ea tm en t i n the m o st effec ti v e m an n er; (3 ) t h e k in d s o f

s e n te n c e s a v a ila b le ; ... ( 6) t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defe ndant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ; and (7 ) t h e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n to a n yv ic tim s o f th e o ffe n s e . -7- r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed on an a ppl i cat i on of C hapt er s FourorFi ve of the G ui del i nes i s r efe r r ed t o as a “de partur e, ” w hi l e a s ent ence above orbel ow the re co m m en d ed G u idelines ran g e thro u g h ap p li ca ti o n o f th e se n tenc ing fa ctors i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) i s cal l ed a “ var i ance . ” Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 476 F. 3d 2 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 1 n .1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b a n c re q u e st d e n ied ). T h u s, o n a p p e a l, i t is e v id e n t M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia is re n e w in g h is c laim h is s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le underthe § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr ant i ng a var i ance fora bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and, forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , i s s ugges t i ng w e s houl d al s o appl yt he l aw appl i cabl e t o dow nw ar d departur es i n pr ovi di ng fors uch a be l ow - G ui del i nes s e n te n c e .-8-

R e g a rd in g M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia’ s re n e w e d c laim h is s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , w e r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s the s ent ence ’ s l ength, as g u id e d b yth e fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Torr es - D uenas , 461 F. 3d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), pet i t i on f orcer t . f

i l ed( N ov. 22, 2006) ( N o. 06- 7990) . T hes e fa ct or s “i ncl ude the natur e of the offens e and c har act er i s t i cs of the defe ndant , as w el l as the nee d forthe s ent ence t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e, t o pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence , t o pr ot ectthe publ i c, and t o pr ovi de the defe ndantw i th neede d tr ai ni ng ortr eatm ent. . . . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( percur i am ) . W e have det erm i ned a pr es um pt i on of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s a t t a c h e s t o a s e n t e n c e , l i k e h e r e , w h i c h i s w i th i n th e c o rr e c t l yc a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s ra n g e . S e e id . a t 1 0 5 3 -5 4 . W e re q u ire re a so n a b len e ss in tw o r es pect s – “the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as the met hod byw hi ch the s e n te n c e w a s c a lc u la te d ,” th e la tte r o f w h ic h M r. B a raja s -G a rc ia d o e s n o t c o n te s t. Id. at1055 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) . I f the di s tr i ctcour t“pr oper l ycons i der s the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence s the defendantw i thi n thatr ange, the s ent ence i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e. ” Id. “Thi s i s a defer ent i al s t andar d that ei therthe defendantort he governm entm ayr ebutbydemonstr at i ng thatthe se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le w h e n v iew e d a g a in st th e o th e r fa c to rs d e lin e a ted in § 3553( a) . ” Id . at1054 . In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly cons i der ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange, w e r evi ew i t s l egal concl us i ons de n o v o a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id.-9-

W e have hel d “[t ] her e i s no ques t i on that , i n addi t i on t o gui di ng our r e a s o n a b l e n e s s r e v i e w o n a p p e a l , th e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s s e tfo r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) m us tbe cons i der ed bythe di s tr i ctcour ti t s el f w hen i m pos i ng a s ent ence . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). [W ] her e a de fenda nthas r ai s ed a nonf r i vol ous ar gum entthatthe § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and has expr es s l yr eques t ed s uch a s ent ence , w e mustbe abl e t o di s cern fr om the r ecor d thatt he s ent enci ng j udge di d notr es ton the gui del i nes a lo n e , b u t co n sid e re d w h e th e r th e g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e a c tu a lly con form s, i n the ci rcum st ances, t o the st atutoryfact ors. Id. a t 1 1 1 7 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s , a lte ra tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ).

I n thi s cas e, beca us e the di s tr i ctcour tappl i ed the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a n d se n ten c e d M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia w ith in th a t ra n g e , h is s e n ten c e is p re su m p tiv e ly r eas onabl e and M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a mustr ebutthi s pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng th e s e n te n c e is u n re a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e s e n te n c in g fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). In att empt i ng t o r ebutt hi s pr es um pt i on, M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a cont ends the di s tr i ct c o u rt fa ile d to g iv e a p p ro p ri a te w e ig h t to h is c o m p e llin g fa m ily c ir c u m s ta n c e . W e d is a g re e . M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a’ s fami l yci r cumst ance , as partof hi s char act er i s t i cs and hi s t oryfac t or , i s butone of the fa ct or s the di s tr i ctcourtcons i der ed, and i tw as not-10-

re q u ir e d to s in g le o u t o r g iv e m o re w e ig h t to th a t fa c to r t h a n a n yo th e r fa c to r. In ste a d , itis c lea r th e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d th e o th e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs in c o nju n c tio n w ith th e d ir e fa m ily c ir c u m s ta n c e d e s c ri b e d b yM r. B a raja s -G a rc ia . I n s o doi ng, the di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatthe s er i ous natur e of hi s offe ns e and h i s o th e rc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d h i s t o ry , i n c l u d i n g h i s n u me r o u s i l l e g a l r e e n tr i e s , DUI convi ct i ons , t r aff

i c offens es i n l i ghtof hi s al cohol pr obl em, and tw o pr i orvi ol ent cr i m e convi ct i ons , t ogetherw i th the s ent enci ng fac t or s of det err ence and r es pect forthe l aw , out w ei ghed M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a’ s fami l yci r cumst ance , w arr ant i ng a s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnots ay M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia h a s s u fficie n tlyre b u tted th e p re su m p tio n h is s e n ten c e is re a s o n a b le . I n otherw or ds , he has notdemonstr at ed hi s fami l yci r cumst ance , w hen vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the other§ 3553( a) fac t or s , i s s uffi ci ent l ycompel l i ng for th e p u rp o s e o f

m a k in g h is s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le . A s to M r. B arajas-G arc ia’s ne w req u est o n ap p ea l fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture, w e h av e lon g d ec li n ed to ru le on issue s n o t r aised in the d istri ct co u rt w hen the defendantcannots how an i m pedi m entpr ecl uded hi s r ai s i ng the i s s ue or th a t th e g ro u n d n o t r a is e d c o n s titu te d p la in e rr o r r e s u ltin g in m a n ife s t inju s tic e . S e e Un ite dS ta te s v . O r r, 8 6 4 F .2 d 1 5 0 5 , 1 5 0 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). M o re o v e r, th is courthas det erm i ned 8 U . S. C . § 1326, r egar di ng the cr i m i nal conductof i l l egal re e n tryu n d e r w h ich M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia w a s c o n v icte d , req u ire s n o sp e c ific-11-

m o ti v e o r i n tent, so that an ali en ’s i n tent, m o ti v ati o n , o r reaso n s fo r i ll eg al en try in to th e c o u n try , inc lu d in g fa m ilyties a n d re sp o n sib ili ties , ca n n o t se rv e a s a b a sis fo r d e p a rt u re fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f re d u c in g a s e n te n c e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez - B ai de , 3 9 2 F .3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 7 -5 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), cer t . gr ant ed on o th e rt e r ms , 5 4 4 U . S . 1 0 1 5 (20 0 5 ), r ei ns tat ed on r em and , 146 Fed. A ppx. 302 (10 th C ir . A u g . 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 ). W h il e the d istri ct co u rtap p rop ri atelyco n side red M r. B a rajas -G a rc ia’ s fa m ilyc irc u m sta n c e u n d e r th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) se n ten c in g fa c to rs, h is fami l yci r cumst ance s erves no bas i s fora dow nw ar d departur e.

B . U nr eas onabl enes s of Sent ence i n C onj unct i on W i th Fas t - T r ack Sent enci ng D i s par i t i es I n s u p p o r to f

h i s c l a i m h i s s e n t e n c e i s u n r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) ( 6) , M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a cont ends thi s courterr ed i n deci di ng Mart i nezTruj i l l o w ith re g a rd to fa s t- tr a c k s e n te n c in g d is p a ri tie s . See 4 6 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 8 . H e r ai s es hi s ar gum entas a means of pr es ervi ng the i s s ue forfutur e r evi ew on a p p e a l.

I n Ma rtin ez-Tru

jil lo , w e e x p lain e d c e rta in d istric t co u rts e m p lo ya fa sttr ack pr ogr am i n w hi ch defendant s r ece i ve l ow ers ent ence s i n excha nge for p lea d in g g u iltya n d w a iv in g th e ir rig h t to file c e rta in m o tio n s o r a p p e a l th e ir s e n te n c e s . See 4 6 8 F . 3 d at 12 6 7 . In th at ca se, w e a d d resse d a d efen d an t’ s-12-

a rg u m e n t th a t b e c a u se h e w a s s e n ten c e d in a d istric t th a t d id n o t u til ize a fa sttr a c k p r o g r a m, h e e x p e r i e n c e d a s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i tyu n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ) w ith d e fe n d a n ts in fa s t- tr a c k s y s te m s re c e iv in g le s s e r s e n te n c e s . Id. W e c o n c lu d e d th a t b e c a u se C o n g re ss p e rm itt e d d istric t co u rts to p a rticip a te in s uch fa s t - tr ack pr ogr ams, butdi d notr evi s e the t erm s of § 3553( a) ( 6) r egar di ng s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i t i e s , Co n g r e s s r e c o g n i z e d s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i t i e s fo rs o me defe ndant s w oul d r es ul tfr om s uch pr ogr ams, butthats uch s ent ence s w oul d not v io la te § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 6 ). Id. at1268- 69 ( r el y i ng on the Pr os ecut or i al R emedi es and Ot h e rTo o l s t o En d th e Ex p l o i t a t i o n o f Ch i l d r e n To d a yAc to f 2 0 0 3 ( P ROTE CT A ct ) , Pub. L . N o. 108- 21, 117 St at . 650 ( codi fi ed i n s catt er ed s ect i ons of Ti t l es 18 a n d 4 2 U .S .C .)) . B eca us e Ma rtin ez-Tru jil lo is c o n tro lli n g p re c e d e n t in th is ci r cui t , w e ca nnotoverturn t hatdeci s i on abs enten banc r evi ew oran i nt erveni ng S u p re m e C o u rt d e c is io n . See Tor r es - D uenas , 461 F. 3d at1183. T hus , w e dec l i ne t o ent ert ai n M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a’ s chal l enge t o thi s court ’ s deci s i on i n Mart i nezTruj i l l o w ith re g a rd to fas t - tr ack s ent enci ng di s par i t i es orotherw i s e cons i der w hetherhi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof thatdeci s i on.-13- I I I . C oncl us i on Forthes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM M r . B ar aj as - G ar ci a’ s convi ct i on and s e n te n c e . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge