In the past two days, the Second Circuit has released two summary orders denying appeals based on the disparity in sentences imposed for illegal re-entry in jurisdictions that have and do not have fast-track disposition programs. In both cases, the Second Circuit relies on its decision in United States v. Mejia, 461 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussed here), in which it held 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."
Why the sudden rash of Mejia-reliant decisions? Could it be because the Second Circuit initially forgot when it decided United States v. Pereira (discussed here) that it had decided Mejia (as the Second Circuit Blog pointed out here and here)? Is this a reminder that Mejia is good law? And why does Ellis cite to Mejia using its F.3d cite while Velasquez cites to Mejia using a LEXIS cite?