ORDER
Renato Torres-Vasquez pleaded guilty to reentering the United States after having been previously removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(а). The district court sentenced him within the guidelines to 76 months’ imprisonment. Torres-Vasquez appeals, arguing that the district court’s sentenсe was in error because the court did not consider the sentence disparity created by the absence of what is known as a fast-track program. We affirm.
I.
Torres-Vasquez is a Mexican citizen who has been removed from the United States three times already. He was first removed to Mexico in February 1999, after he served a 73-month federal sentence for a cocaine-related offense. Six months la
On September 28, 2008, Torres-Vasquez was charged in an indictment in the Northern District of Illinois with illegally reentering the United States after having been deported, a violation 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He requested to plead guilty in the Central District of Cаlifornia under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, which permits the transfer of defendants from one district to another. The request was denied and Torres-Vasquez was removed to the Northern District of Illinois, where his case was initiated. He then pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry.
Before sentencing, Torres-Vasquez argued that he should receive a below guidelines sеntence because he was arrested in the Central District of California, a district where there is a fast-track program for illegal reentry defendants. So far, at least sixteen federal districts have adopted fast-track programs to address the high volume of illegal-reentry cases. See United States v. Reyes-Hernandez,
II.
On appeal, Torres-Vasquеz argues that the district court erred when it failed to consider the sentencing disparity created between fast-track and non-fast-track districts. At the time of Torres-Vasquez’s sentencing, we did not allow district courts to depart below the guidelines range solely because the district did not have a fast-track program. See United States v. Galicia-Cardenas,
Regardless of this change of approach, Torres-Vasquez’s argument on appeal has no merit because, сontrary to Torres-Vasquez’s contention, the district court did consider the disparity created by the absence of a fast-trаck program during sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, the district court recognized that Torres-Vasquez would have benefitted from a fast-track program had he remained in
Defendant has a very significant criminal history, including convictions for two controlled-substances offenses, and a crime of violence. Two previous deportations have not deterred Defendant from returning to the United States, most recently just one month after an order of deportation. Defendant’s family ties in this [country], his limited Spanish skills, and his history of re-entry and of use of an alias, all render recidivism a likelihood. These factors also militate against leniency based upon the unavailability here оf fast track disposition that might have been available to Defendant had he been permitted to [plead] guilty in California.
Thus, the district court acted in this case as we have suggested in United States v. Reyes-Hernandez: it noted the disparity created by the absence of a fast-track program but found that Torres-Vasquez’s particular circumstances weighed against any leniency based on fast-track considerations.
Torres-Vasquez also argues that the district court erred when it failed to consider the disparity created by the сourt’s denial of his Rule 20 request to be transferred to the Central District of California. But any such disparity stems solely from the presenсe of a fast-track program, and as discussed above, the district court considered this disparity and concluded that Torres-Vasquez’s circumstances weighed against leniency. We also do not think the defendant’s flight from Illinois to evade arrest gave him any right to be sentenced on the basis of practices in the district to which he fled. A defendant should not be able to improve his legal position by fleeing arrest. Accordingly, the district court committed no error in sentencing.
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.