Opinion ID: 2974794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disparity With Fast-Track Districts

Text: Next, Defendant argues the district court unreasonably refused to sentence him below the Guidelines range based on the differences between his sentence and sentences of similarly situated defendants in fast-track jurisdictions. Fast-track programs were first created to ease the burden in some districts dealing with illegal re-entry cases. Primarily these districts were located on the Mexican border, and typically a large number of illegal re-entry cases. The high volume of illegal re-entry cases strained facilities as there was not enough space to house defendants and a shortage of prosecutors. To alleviate the problem, prosecutors in fast-track districts have agreed to significantly reduced sentences in exchange for prompt guilty pleas. This procedure requires the defendant to enter into a plea bargain with the government and forfeit the right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction. The purpose of fast-track programs is to facilitate quick and easy disposition of cases to reduce the burdens they impose in those districts. The Southern District of Ohio has not implemented a fast-track program. This Court has held that the existence of fast-track programs does not render disparate sentences outside of fast-track jurisdictions unreasonable. See United States v. HernandezFierros, 453 F.3d 309, 314 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding sentencing disparity between fast-track district and non fast-track district “does not run counter to § 3553(a)’s instruction to avoid unnecessary sentencing disparities”); United States v. Contreras-Armendariz, No. 05-5483, 2006 5 WL 3488784, at  (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2006) (unpublished opinion) (holding the district court’s refusal to sentence defendant as if fast-track sentencing was available in Kentucky did not render the sentence unreasonable); see also United States v. Hernandez-Cervantes, 161 F. App’x 508 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion) (holding defendant’s sentence was not rendered unreasonable by disparities between defendant’s sentence and sentences received by defendants in fast-track jurisdictions); United States v. Louis, 185 F. App’x 500 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinion) (holding defendant’s sentence was not rendered unreasonable by district court’s failure to consider the disparity created by the lack of a fast-track sentencing scheme in the district). Defendant has not rebutted the presumption that his sentence is reasonable.