United States v. Mejia, Docket No. 05-3903-cr., 2006 WL 2411384 (2d Cir. Aug. 22, 2006) (found here)
Mejia claimed on appeal that the district court that sentenced him "erred in declining to reduce his sentence to account for the lesser sentence he presumably would have received in one of the thirteen districts that use a 'fast-track' or 'early disposition' program, which allows a defendant charged with illegal reentry to plead to a reduced sentence or to a lesser offense," and that there was therefore an unwarranted sentence disparity (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)) between the sentence he received and the sentence received by defendants like him in those "fast-track" jurisdictions. The Second Circuit rejected Mejia's argument, holding 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."
Although a general negative, the Second Circuit's holding in Mejia is not a total negative. By holding that a district court's refusal to adjust a sentence to compensate for fast-track disparity does not make a sentence unreasonable, the Second Circuit at least implicitly held out the possibility that an adjustment to a defendant's sentence to account for fast-track disparity would not necessarily make that sentence unreasonable.