Opinion ID: 768672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sentencing Dispute

Text: 4 According to the Guidelines drug quantity table, Sentamu's base offense level was 28. The presentence report (PSR) on Sentamu recommended a number of reductions for such factors as acceptance of responsibility and minimal role in the offense, and arrived ata total offense level of 19. Given Sentamu's criminal history category of I, the range of imprisonment prescribed by the Guidelines was 30-37 months. Sentamu asked the district court to depart downward one step from thatrange because of his voluntar[y] agree[ment] to be deported from the United States, and, in any event, to take into consideration his immaturity and acceptance of responsibility in determining atwhich end of the Guidelines range to sentence him. (Status Conference Transcript, November 4, 1998, at 2, 3.) 5 The government opposed the requested departure for Sentamu's agreement to deportation. Although in 1996 the United States Attorneys for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York (US Attorneys) had adopted a policy of supporting one-step downward departures under §5K2.0 of the Guidelines for deportable alien defendants who pleaded guilty and consented to deportation as part of their plea agreements (1996 policy), the government pointed out, in opposing such a departure for Sentamu, thatin July 1998 the US Attorneys had given notice thatthey were discontinuing the 1996 policy. The US Attorneys' joint July 1998 letter, addressed to the then-Chief Judges of both Districts, explained thatthe 1996 policy of supporting such departures had been instituted on a trial basis and thatthe policy was being discontinued because 6 stipulating to deportation itself provides a significant benefit to an alien defendant and ... further incentives, such as a reduction in the defendant's criminal sentence, are not warranted, 7 (Letter from Zachary W. Carter and Mary Jo White to then-Chief Judge Charles P. Sifton and then-Chief Judge Thomas P. Griesa, dated July 10, 1998, at 2); 8 the administrative burden of deportation without stipulation has been substantially reduced for certain classes of aliens by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,... with the result thatthe benefits to the government of stipulated deportation are reduced, 9 id.; 10 the practice of agreeing to recommend downward departures for stipulated deportation has created unfair disparities among similarly situated defendants, 11 id.; and 12 the only circuit court to consider the issue has concluded thatsuch departures are not authorized by Section 5K2.0 of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Clase-Espinal, 115 F.3d 1054 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 384 (1997), 13 id. See generally United States v. Galvez-Falconi, 174 F.3d at 259 (discussing the Justice Department's authorization of the 1996 policy and the reasons for the policy's termination); United States v. Montez-Gaviria, 163 F.3d 697, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1998) (same). The district court asked Sentamu and the government to submit briefs on the question of whether a departure in recognition of a defendant's consent to deportation was permissible in general and warranted here. 14 Sentamu submitted a letter brief arguing thatthe US Attorneys' 1996 policy had been introduced to effectuate Congress's directive, see 8 U.S.C. §1228(a)(1) (Supp. III 1997), thatthe Executive Branch ... take steps to ensure thataliens convicted of certain crimes are deported as soon as practicable after completing their prison terms. (Letter from Legal Aid Society Attorney Douglas G. Morris to then-Chief Judge Charles P. Sifton dated November 24, 1998 (Sentamu Letter), at2.) Sentamu argued thatthe INS continues to face problems in meeting the Congressional mandate to promptly process deportable alien inmates and thatthe INS continues to derive substantial assistance from a defendant's voluntary agreement to be deported. (Id. at1.) The brief attached an October 16, 1998 report from the United States General Accounting Office to the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, entitled CRIMINAL ALIENS [] INS' Efforts to Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continue to Need Improvement. The report stated thatthe INS remained in arrears in achieving the expeditious removal of deportable criminal aliens, including aggravated felons. 15 The government submitted a letter brief arguing, inter alia, thatdownward departures for a defendant's consent to deportation are not authorized by the Guidelines, because a stipulation to deportation by an aggravated felon is neither special nor unusual in kind or degree. (Letter from Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan E. Davis to then-Chief Judge Charles P. Sifton dated December 23, 1998 (Government Letter), at5-6.) The government also argued thatthe INS does not materially benefit from a convicted alien's consent to deportation, because [i]mmigration laws enacted in 1996 have eliminated substantially all of the administrative and judicial burdens thata criminal alien opposing deportation could previously oblige the[INS] to shoulder. (Id. at2.) With respect to its lowered burdens, the government cited in particular the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), P.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (April 24, 1996), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996). It pointed out thatAEDPA repealed the provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1105a thatauthorized judicial review of orders of deportation for many categories of aliens convicted of a crime, including all defendants convicted of aggravated felonies, narcotics offenses or firearms offenses, and thatIIRIRA expanded the definition of aggravated felon to include most aliens convicted of felonies, and narrowed the scope of habeas corpus review for alien felons facing deportation. (Government Letter at4.) IIRIRA also authorized administrative reinstatement of prior deportation orders..., 8 U.S.C.§1231, thus permitting summary deportation of aliens previously deported and eliminating the need for new deportation proceedings. (Government Letter at4.) The government concluded thatthe deportation reforms have created a system in which the INS's burdens are far less onerous with respect to the greatmajority of deportable inmates, including defendant. (Id. at4-5.)