is only one factor a district court is to consider in imposing a sentence.”); United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir.2006) (“[W]e hold that merely pointing out the existence of such [fast-track] disparities, with no reference to the characteristics of the particular defendant, does not render a within-Guidelines sentence unreasonable.”); United States v. Galicia-Cardenas, 443 F.3d 553, 555 (7th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (reversing district court sentence imposed with a four-level downward departure because the district lacked a fast-track program, leaving to the district court’s discretion “[w]hether [defendant] deserves a sentence below the advisory guideline range based on other factors”); United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 442 F.3d 539, 543 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sebastian, 436 F.3d 913, 916
holding that while tenth circuit had specifically and clearly held that crackpowder disparity was not valid basis for departure district court was free to consider this disparity in determining sentence postbookerfanfan holding that the sentence disparities arising from fasttrack programs do not make  the defendants sentence unreasonable holding that any disparity between the defendants sentence and those available or imposed in fasttrack jurisdictions was considered appropriately as a single and not controlling factor holding that district court plainly erred when it decided to impose a sentence comparable to a fasttrack sentence where the defendant did not enter into a fasttrack plea agreement holding that the district courts failure to give consideration to the sentencing disparity that would result was another reason the defendants sentence was unreasonable