United States v. Alberic Agodio
670 F. App'x 130
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Alberic Okou Agodio pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud affecting a financial institution, and aggravated identity theft; district court sentenced him to 61 months.
- Agodio’s plea agreement contained a waiver of appellate rights.
- The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate-waiver in the plea agreement.
- Agodio argued his sentence was impermissibly based on his nationality or race, noting lighter sentences for his two white coconspirators.
- The district court explained it considered Agodio’s immigrant/deportable status (which it viewed as increasing the hardship of incarceration) and his pattern of dishonesty and role in expanding the fraud when imposing 61 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/scope of appellate waiver | Waiver is not a bar to his claims | Waiver is valid and bars appeal except for race/nationality claim | Waiver knowingly entered and bars all claims except those alleging race/nationality-based sentencing |
| Whether sentence was based on nationality or race | Sentence was impermissibly influenced by Agodio’s West African nationality and race; notes coconspirators’ lower sentences | Court noted it did not reference race/nationality; considered deportable status as legitimate sentencing factor and other conduct-based reasons for sentence disparity | Claim unpersuasive; district court did not base sentence on race/nationality and properly considered deportable status and conduct; sentence affirmed |
| Requirement to equalize sentences with coconspirators under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) | Agodio argued disparity with white coconspirators required similar sentence | Disparity need not produce identical sentences; court can consider individual differences in conduct and history | Court held § 3553(a)(6) does not mandate identical sentences and disparate sentences were supported by conduct and other factors |
| Career-offender disparate impact argument | Agodio claimed career-offender rule disproportionately impacts black males | Government noted record shows Agodio was not sentenced as a career offender | Court observed Agodio was not sentenced under career-offender provision; claim not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (standards for knowing and intelligent appellate-waiver)
- United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493 (4th Cir. 1992) (appeal-waiver does not bar claim that sentence was based on race or nationality)
- DeBeir v. United States, 186 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 1999) (district court may consider adverse impact of incarceration on deportable aliens)
- United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2007) (§ 3553(a)(6) concerns national disparities generally and does not require identical sentences)