Fast-track disparity after Booker

Late yesterday, the Tenth Circuit issued United States vs. Martinez-Trujillo, No. 05-4122 (10th Cir. Nov. 20, 2006) (available here), an interesting little opinion on fast-track disparity after Booker.  In Martinez-Trujillo, the Tenth Circuit explains that “[w]e cannot say that a disparity is ‘unwarranted’ within the meaning of § 3553(a)(6) when the disparity was specifically authorized by Congress in the PROTECT Act.”

The debate over fast-track disparity is one of many post-Booker “hot spots” that are not formally before the Supreme Court in Claiborne and Rita (lots of background here).  But it is surely possible (perhaps probable?) that the decisions in Claiborne and Rita could impact how all “hot spot” post-Booker issues are resolved in the future.