Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Salvador GALVAN-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-15
Citations: 420 F. App'x 24
Docket Number: No. 07-1387-cr
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Salvador GALVAN-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Present: JON 0. NEWMAN and GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 24–25

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Salvador GALVAN-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-1387-cr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 15, 2008.
Darrell B. Fields, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., Appeals Bureau, New York, N.Y., for Appellant.
Benton J. Campbell, U.S. Atty., Steven Tiscione, Jo Ann M. Navickas, Asst. U.S. Attys., Brooklyn, N.Y., for Appellee.
Present: JON 0. NEWMAN and GUIDO CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Reena Raggi, who was originally a member of this panel, has recused herself, and the appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel, who are in agreement. See 2d Cir. R. 0.14(b).

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Salvador GalvanRios appeals from the April 3, 2007, judgment of the District Court, sentencing him primarily to 46 months' imprisonment following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry after having been deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts.
The Appellant contends that the sentence, which was at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range, is unreasonable in view of his family circumstances and commendable steps toward rehabilitation for his drug problems. We see no basis for disturbing the sentence. The District Judge considered the relevant factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), took family circumstances and rehabilitation into account, and reasonably concluded that the Appellant's commission of a narcotics offense after he had illegally reentered following deportation warranted a sentence of 46 months. The fact that more lenient sentences have been given in so-called "fast-track" districts was not asserted in the District Court and, in any event, does not warrant appellate relief, see United States v. Pereira, 465 F.3d 515, 522-23 (2d Cir.2006); United States v. Mejia, 461 F.3d 158, 164 (2d Cir.2006).