Opinion ID: 615505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Overview of Fast Track

Text: Fast-[T]rack, or `early[-]disposition' programs, were used in federal district courts as early as 1994, United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405, 409 (7th Cir.2010), when United States Attorneys began implementing these programs in their respective districts without any congressional warrant to help[] manage an exploding volume of immigration-related cases, Thomas E. Gorman, Note, Fast-Track Sentencing Disparity: Rereading Congressional Intent to Resolve the Circuit Split, 77 U. Chi. L.Rev. 479, 485 (2010); accord Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d at 409-10. United States Attorneys implemented these programs predominantly in jurisdictions along the United States's southwestern border with the Republic of Mexico, Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d at 409. Nearly a decade later, Congress formalized the practice by enacting the Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), Pub.L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). Id. at 410. Congress made crimes against children the PROTECT Act's primary focus but also paired the PROTECT Act with the Feeney Amendment. Katherine Arnold McCurry, Comment, Rejecting Consideration of the Fast-Track Disparity in a Post -Kim-brough World, 45 Wake Forest L.Rev. 1401, 1402 & n. 12 (2010) (citing § 401, 117 Stat. at 667-76). The Feeney Amendment technically was an amendment to the Child Abduction Prevention Act, the PROTECT Act's companion bill. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d at 410. According to the [legislative] commentary [accompanying the Feeney Amendment], Congress sanctioned limited departures under structured early disposition programs, although such programs were to be reserved only for offenses whose high incidence within the district has imposed an extraordinary strain on the resources of that district as compared to other districts. H.R.Rep. No. 108-48, at 7 (2003) (emphasis added); see also [ United States v. ] Martinez-Martinez, 442 F.3d [539,] 542 [(7th Cir.2006)]. Congress also commented that the bill does not confer authority to depart downward on an ad hoc basis in individual cases. H.R.Rep. No. 108-48, at 7. Id. With the Feeney Amendment and other additions, the PROTECT Act emerged from Congress as part of an overarching initiative to respond to a purported increase in departures from the [G]uidelines and provide meaningful appellate review of such cases. Id. In pertinent part, the PROTECT Act directed the Sentencing Commission to promulgate a policy statement `authorizing a downward departure of not more than 4 levels if the Government files a motion for such departure pursuant to an early disposition program authorized by the Attorney General and the United States Attorney.' United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 915-916 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting § 401(m)(2)(B), 117 Stat. at 675). The Commission promptly carried out Congress's directive by adopting USSG § 5K3.1, concerning `Early Disposition Programs,' which provides that `[u]pon motion of the Government, the court may depart downward not more than 4 levels pursuant to an early disposition program' authorized by the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the district. Id. at 916 (alteration in original). This language tracks that of the PROTECT Act essentially verbatim. United States v. Arrelucea-Zamudio, 581 F.3d 142, 145 (3d Cir.2009). As the Seventh Circuit has observed, the development of [F]ast-[T]rack programs has been prolific. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d at 412. Since the Commission's incorporation of § 5K3.1 into the Guidelines, the Attorney General has authorized such programs in several districts along the southwest and western borders of the United States, as well as in Nebraska and North Dakota, but not in Eastern Missouri, Sebastian, 436 F.3d at 916, where Jimenez-Perez was sentenced.