United States v. Ramirez, 652 F.3d 751

Consolidated appeals from three Mexican-national defendants (Mandujano-Gonzalez, Ramirez, Ocampo-Pineda) convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) after removal and unlawful reentry.
All three argued that the absence of a fast-track program in the Northern District of Illinois created a sentencing disparity compared to fast-track districts.
District court initially declined to consider fast-track relief because defendants did not demonstrate eligibility for fast-track treatment.
Mandujano and Ramirez did not credibly show fast-track eligibility; Mandujano’s counsel conceded likely ineligibility, Ramirez offered only speculative assertions without factual predicate.
Ocampo attached a waiver and argued eligibility but failed to show actual eligibility in any fast-track district; district court similarly rejected relief.
Court clarified required threshold showing for fast-track disparity relief and ultimately affirmed all sentences, with Ramirez’s sentence modestly modified on a procedural point.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What evidentiary showing triggers fast-track review?	Mandujano and Ramirez: no proof of eligibility; Ocampo: waiver but no actual eligibility.	Defendants contend absence of fast-track creates disparity; should be considered if any likelihood of eligibility exists.	Defendant must show eligibility in at least one fast-track district and provide likely imprisonment range; otherwise disparity claim may be passed over.
Did Mandujano and Ramirez meet the threshold for fast-track disparity relief?	Neither demonstrated actual eligibility or pursued fast-track options.	Ramirez argued possible eligibility in another district; Mandujano's lawyer conceded likely ineligibility.	Their disparity arguments were illusory and not required to be addressed by the district court.
Did Ocampo's approach show he is similarly situated to fast-track defendants?	Govt. advocated remand unless strong, unconditional eligibility proof; proposed district-by-district quantification.	Ocampo argued he complied with plea and waiver steps and attached a fast-track-like conditional waiver.	Ocampo did not establish actual eligibility in any fast-track district; fast-track argument rejected and case affirmed.

United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (fast-track disparity review requires eligibility demonstration first)
United States v. Olmeda-Garcia, 613 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2010) (threshold foundation for fast-track disparity)
United States v. Arrelucea-Zamudio, 581 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (fast-track parity requires actual eligibility; en banc context)
United States v. Galicia-Cardenas, 443 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2006) (previous framework for considering fast-track arguments)
United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 442 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2006) (early framework for fast-track eligibility and disparities)