UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALBERIC OKOU AGODIO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. 

(1:15-cr-00061-JKB-1)

Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Murray Kamionski, LAW OFFICE OF MURRAY KAMIONSKI, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alberic Okou Agodio appeals the 61-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit 

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2012); one count 

of wire fraud affecting a financial institution, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012); and one count of aggravated identity 

theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(5) (2012). 

The Government has moved to dismiss Agodio’s appeal based upon a 

waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement.

We conclude that the appeal waiver contained in Agodio’s 

plea agreement is valid, as he entered it knowingly and 

intelligently. See United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 

(4th Cir. 2010). Moreover, Agodio’s appeal of his sentence is 

barred by his waiver of appellate rights, except for his claim 

that his sentence was impermissibly based on his nationality or 

race. United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 

1992). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss in part and 

dismiss the appeal of the claims not based on nationality or 

race. We also deny the motion to dismiss in part on the ground 

that Agodio’s claim of national or racial bias falls outside the 

scope of the waiver provision; however, our review convinces us 

to affirm the sentence.

Turning to the nonwaived issue, Agodio, a West African 

immigrant who is black, contends that his sentence was 
3

impermissibly based on his nationality or race. In support of 

this contention, Agodio points to the lesser sentences received 

by his coconspirators, who are both white.* We find Agodio’s 

argument unpersuasive. 

The district court did not reference Agodio’s nationality 

or race at the sentencing hearing, and only commented on 

Agodio’s status as an immigrant in response to defense counsel’s 

and Agodio’s arguments on that subject in mitigation. Indeed, 

the district court stated that it was imposing a lesser sentence 

because Agodio was a deportable alien who would likely serve his 

sentence in a higher security prison than others convicted of 

similar crimes. See United States v. DeBeir, 186 F.3d 561, 

569-71 (4th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that district court may take 

into account adverse impact on incarceration caused by status as 

deportable alien). If not for Agodio’s status as a deportable 

alien, the district noted that it would have imposed a lengthier 

sentence. 

Furthermore, the district court considered the sentences 

imposed on Agodio’s coconspirators in fashioning his sentence 

and thoroughly explained its reasoning for arriving at a 

 * Agodio also argues that he was sentenced as a career 

offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the career 

offender provision has a disproportionate impact on black males. 

However, a review of the record reveals that Agodio was not 

sentenced under the career offender provision.
4

61-month sentence. In particular, the district court stressed 

that Agodio exhibited a pattern of dishonesty, both before and 

during the underlying offenses, and that Agodio’s actions grew 

the fraud scheme, increasing the scope and degree of harm to the 

victims. Contrary to Agodio’s protestation, the district court 

was not required to impose a sentence that was identical to 

those of his coconspirators under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (2012). 

See United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2007) 

(“Subsection 3553(a)(6) is concerned with national disparities 

among the many defendants with similar criminal backgrounds 

convicted of similar criminal conduct.”).

For these reasons, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART