Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario REYES-BURGOS, also known as Mario Burgos, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-17
Citations: 472 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 09-50903
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario REYES-BURGOS, also known as Mario Burgos, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 277–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario REYES-BURGOS, also known as Mario Burgos, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50903
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 17, 2010.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mario Reyes-Burgos appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Reyes-Burgos contends that his within-guidelines sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the unwarranted sentencing disparity that exists between defendants sentenced in the Western District of Texas, which does not have a fast-track program, and defendants sentenced in districts that do have such a program. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve the issue for further review.
As Reyes-Burgos concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 563 (5th Cir.2008), where we held that the disparity caused by fast-track programs is not "unwarranted" and does not provide grounds for a sentence reduction. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.