IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 07-51048 FILED
Summary Calendar November 24, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARMANDO DOMINGUEZ-CHAVEZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:07-CR-931-ALL
Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Armando Dominguez-Chavez (Dominguez) appeals the 24-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. Dominguez contends that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion for discovery and failing to compel the Government to
produce documentation concerning the Western District of Texas’s refusal to
participate in a fast-track program. He also contends that the absence of a fast-
track program in the Western District of Texas resulted in an unwarranted
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 07-51048
sentencing disparity and that the district court erred in failing to consider this
unwarranted sentencing disparity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
Dominguez’s contention that the absence of a fast-track program in the
Western District of Texas resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity is
foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d
554, 562-63 (5th Cir. 2008), petition for cert. filed (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226);
United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 808 (5th Cir. 2008), petition for
cert. filed (July 25, 2008) (No. 08-5514). Further, in light of Gomez-Herrera and
Lopez-Velasquez, the materials sought were neither relevant nor necessary to
district court’s imposition of sentence, and Dominguez has failed to show that
the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for discovery. See
United States v. Butler, 429 F.3d 140, 148 (5th Cir. 2005). Finally, Dominguez
has failed to adequately raise or develop his due process and equal protection
arguments in his appellate brief, and, thus, they are waived. See United States
v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED.
2