Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio CARRASCO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-30
Citations: 324 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: Nos. 08-10753, 08-10854
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio CARRASCO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 366–366

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio CARRASCO-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 08-10753, 08-10854
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 30, 2009.
Amanda R. Burch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant, Federal Public Defender Federal Public Defender’s, Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sergio Carrasco-Flores appeals the 24-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. In his sole issue on appeal, Carrasco-Flores raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 557-64 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 624, 172 L.Ed.2d 617 (2008), which held that any disparity in sentencing between fast-track and non-fast-track jurisdictions is a function of Congressional policy and is not "unwarranted" under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Carrasco-Flores concedes as much but asserts that he wishes to preserve the issue for further review. Carrasco-Flores raised additional sentencing arguments in the district court, which he does not raise here. He also appealed the revocation of a previously-imposed term of supervised release, and the two appeals were consolidated. As the sole issue raised in his brief pertains to the foreclosed fast-track disparity argument, he has abandoned all other issues. See United States v. Trujillo, 502 F.3d 353, 360 & n. 30 (5th Cir.2007).
The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government's motion to dismiss and its alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief are DENIED as unnecessary.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.