Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Lorenzo RENTERIA-VAZQUEZ, also known as Francisco Renteria, also known as Juan Garcia, also known as Francisco Lorenzo Renteria-Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-17
Citations: 467 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 11-50617
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Lorenzo RENTERIA-VAZQUEZ, also known as Francisco Renteria, also known as Juan Garcia, also known as Francisco Lorenzo Renteria-Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco Lorenzo RENTERIA-VAZQUEZ, also known as Francisco Renteria, also known as Juan Garcia, also known as Francisco Lorenzo Renteria-Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50617
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 17, 2012.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Francisco Lorenzo Renteria-Vazquez raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 562-63 (5th Cir. 2008), which held that the disparity in sentences that occurs because some defendants can participate in a fast-track program while others cannot is not "unwarranted" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government's alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.