ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Defendant Carlos Rodríguez-Preciado pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to illegal reentry after deportation as an aggravated felon. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). The presentence report calculated Defendant’s total offense level as 21 and his criminal history as category IV. This resulted in a recommended range of 57-71 months’ incarceration under the sentencing guidelines.

Defendant did not object to the guidelines calculation in the presentence report but submitted a written motion arguing for a below-guidelines sentence. He noted that Colorado has no fast-track sentencing program, which is a program that allows offenders to obtain lower sentences for promptly pleading to specified offenses; and he argued that the district court should exercise its discretion to impose a nonguidelines sentence because of the disparities resulting from fast-track programs.

The district court rejected Defendant’s argument for the reasons offered by the government, which included that Defendant had not established that he would have been eligible for a fast-track program in a district with such a program. On appeal the sole issue is whether the court appropriately rejected Defendant’s request for a below-guidelines sentence based on fast-track disparities.

Recent precedent is precisely in point. We held that “a district court in a non-fast-track district has the discretion to vary from a defendant’s applicable guideline range based on fast-track sentence disparities,” but only after the defendant has met “the initial burden of showing entitlement, in some sense, to a variance based on fast-track sentence disparities.” United States v. Lopez-Macias, 661 F.3d 485, 487 (10th Cir. 2011). Defendant has made no showing of such entitlement. Therefore, the district court acted well within its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for a variance.

We AFFIRM the district court’s decision.