United States v. Ramirez, 675 F.3d 634

Three defendants (Mandujano-Gonzalez, Ramirez, Ocampo-Pineda) are Mexican nationals previously removed who reentered the United States and were charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Mandujano-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to DUI; his guidelines included a 16-level § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) enhancement for a previously-committed crime of violence, yielding a 46–57 month range, and he argued a fast-track disparity due to absence of fast-track in the Northern District of Illinois.
Ramirez pleaded guilty; his guideline range was 46–57 months after a 16‑level enhancement for a violent crime; he similarly argued fast-track disparity but did not demonstrate eligibility.
Ocampo-Pineda pleaded guilty; the district court applied a 16-level enhancement for sexual abuse of a minor, yielding a 41–51 month range; he urged a fast-track reduction to reflect absence of fast-track in the district and offered a conditional waiver as part of his sentencing materials.
Initially the district court rejected fast-track arguments for all three, citing lack of demonstrated eligibility, and imposed sentences within the guideline ranges (Mandujano 48 months, Ramirez 50 months, Ocampo 40 months).
The Seventh Circuit consolidated the cases to resolve what evidentiary showing is required to warrant consideration of fast-track disparities and how such disparities should be quantified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What showing is required to trigger fast-track consideration	Mandujano and Ramirez contend absence of fast-track causes disparity; failure to prove eligibility bars review	Mandujano and Ramirez argue any disparity justifies relief notwithstanding strict eligibility proof	Disparity review requires proof of eligibility and pursuit of fast-track in at least one district
Did Mandujano meet the fast-track eligibility threshold	Govt. concedes no meaningful demonstration of eligibility; Mandujano did not establish fast-track parity	Mandujano argues some eligibility could exist in other districts	Mandujano's argument illusory; no required relief
Did Ramirez meet the fast-track eligibility threshold	Ramirez did not show he would qualify or pursue fast-track; no eligibility predicate	Ramirez contends possible eligibility if sentenced in another district	Ramirez's argument illusory; no relief warranted
Did Ocampo's fast-track argument warrant remand or is it illusory	Ocampo satisfied steps toward fast-track parity with a guilty plea and attempted waiver; argued eligibility	Ocampo asserts he did everything possible to show eligibility and parity	Ocampo's argument was illusory; the district court did not err in declining to comment; sentences affirmed with Ramirez's participation clarified

United States v. Reyes-Hernandez, 624 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (establishes threshold that fast-track relief requires eligibility and pursuit)
United States v. Olmeda-Garcia, 613 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2010) (requires factual predicate showing eligibility for fast-track relief)
United States v. Galacia-Cardenas, 443 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2006) (pre-Reyes-Hernandez consideration of fast-track impact on § 3553(a))
United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 442 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2006) (early framework for fast-track disparity considerations)
United States v. Arrelucea-Zamudio, 581 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (requires showing actual eligibility in a fast-track district)