Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul SOLIS-ARROYO, also known as Arnulfo Arroyo, also known as Raul Solis, also known as Mario Jaramillo, also known as Jaime Palo, also known as Alcadio Gamero, also known as Arnulfo Benitez, also known as Saul Solis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-16
Citations: 563 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 13-50566
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul SOLIS-ARROYO, also known as Arnulfo Arroyo, also known as Raul Solis, also known as Mario Jaramillo, also known as Jaime Palo, also known as Alcadio Gamero, also known as Arnulfo Benitez, also known as Saul Solis, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul SOLIS-ARROYO, also known as Arnulfo Arroyo, also known as Raul Solis, also known as Mario Jaramillo, also known as Jaime Palo, also known as Alcadio Gamero, also known as Arnulfo Benitez, also known as Saul Solis, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50566
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 16, 2014.
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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, Donna F. Coltharp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, El Paso, TX, David Matthew Cole Peterson, Esq., Trial Attorney, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Saul Solis-Arroyo raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 562-63 (5th Cir.2008), which rejected the argument that fast track programs create unwarranted disparities between defendants in districts that have the programs and defendants in districts that do not have such programs. Accordingly, the Government's motion for summary affir-mance is GRANTED, its 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.