SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Walter Velasquez appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kenneth M. Karas, Judge) convicting him, after a plea of guilty, of one count of illegal re-entry into the United States subsequent to the commission of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). See United States v. Velasquez, No. 05 Cr. 13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2005). The District Court sentenced defendant to a term of 41 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a term of two years’ supervised release.1

On appeal, defendant argues that the District Court erred in finding that sentencing disparities created by the Department of Justice’s “fast-track” programs2 *60for illegal reentry offenders are not “unwarranted” disparities within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). In particular, defendant claims that the District Court erred in rejecting his argument that the absence of “fast-track” programs in some districts (including the one in which he was convicted) creates unwarranted disparities among “defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Accordingly, defendant argues that under the framework set forth in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), the District Court should have imposed a lower, non-Guidelines sentence in order to avoid such disparities.

Defendant’s claim is without merit. We recently addressed precisely the issue raised by defendant in United States v. Mejia, 461 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2006); in that case, we held “that a district court’s refusal to adjust a sentence to compensate for the absence of a fast-track program does not make a sentence unreasonable,” id. at 164. We further held that because “Congress expressly approved of fast-track programs without mandating them[,] Congress thus necessarily decided that they do not create the unwarranted sentencing disparities that it prohibited in Section 3553(a)(6).” Id. at 163.

Pursuant to our holding in Mejia, we therefore conclude that (1) the District Court did not err in failing to adjust defendant’s sentence on the basis of potential disparities caused by the Department of Justice’s “fast-track” programs; (2) defendant’s sentence was “reasonable” and, therefore, not erroneous under the framework set forth by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.