Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

3-7-2007

USA v. Santos Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-1296

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

Recommended Citation "USA v. Santos" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1515. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1515

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-1296

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JULIO ALBERTO SANTOS, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania D.C. Criminal Nos. 04-cr-0286 and 04-cr-0418 (Honorable Mary A. McLaughlin)

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 2, 2007 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, McKEE and NOONAN*, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: March 7, 2007)

OPINION OF THE COURT

NOONAN, Circuit Judge.

Julio Santos (“Santos”) pled guilty both to re-entry after deportation, in violation

of

(a), (b)(2), and escape, in violation of

. Santos now

* The Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, sitting by designation. appeals, arguing that his sentence imposes an “unwarranted” sentence disparity in

violation of

(a)(6), because an offender in a fast-track immigration

district would have received a lesser sentence for the re-entry offense. We have

jurisdiction under

(a) and affirm.

We have recently considered and rejected the fast-track disparity argument.

United States v. Vargas,

(3d Cir. 2007). “Because ... the disparity

between sentences in fast-track and non-fast-track districts is authorized by Congress

and, hence, warranted,” id. at *2, “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 *3.

AFFIRMED.

2