Opinion ID: 768672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Denial of Reconsideration in Light of Galvez-Falconi

Text: 30 By letter dated April 19, 1999, the government moved for reconsideration in light of this Court's decision in United States v. Galvez-Falconi, 174 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1999), which had been issued contemporaneously with the district court's Opinion, and in which this Court stated that 31 a defendant seeking a departure under §5K2.0 for consenting to deportation must present a colorable, nonfrivolous defense to deportation, such thatthe act of consenting to deportation carries with it unusual assistance to the administration of justice, 32 id. at260. The government argued thatbecause Sentamu had never asserted any defense to deportation, let alone a colorable one, he was not entitled to a downward departure under Guidelines §5K2.0. 33 In a Memorandum and Order dated April 28, 1999 (Reconsideration Order), the court denied the government's motion for reconsideration. It distinguished Galvez-Falconi principally on the ground thatthe defendant in thatcase, unlike Sentamu, had previously been deported and was convicted of reentering illegally, an offense thatsubjected him to summary deportation proceedings: 34 [I]f an alien defendant has been convicted of unlawfully re-entering the United States after having been deported, 8U.S.C. §1231(a)(5) provides thatthe prior order of deportation is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. It further provides thatthe alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief from deportation and can be deported under the prior order atany time after the alien's re-entry. See 8U.S.C. §1231(a)(5) (West 1998 Supp.) The [INS] thus is able to summarily deport an alien defendant convicted of unlawful re-entry without instituting any new deportation proceedings. By contrast, to deport Sentamu and other similarly situated alien defendants who have not been convicted of unlawful re-entry, the INS must complete a lengthy administrative process before it can deport them. 35 Reconsideration Order at3-4. The court also found thatthe Galvez-Falconi court had not had the benefit of the extensive factual record before this Court relating the substantial administrative problems which prevent the INS from complying with its statutory responsibilities to detain and expeditiously deport criminal aliens. Reconsideration Order at4-5. 36 Finally, the court reiterated its view thatthe consent of Sentamu in particular had given the INS substantial assistance: 37 Sentamu did not merely agree to consent to his own deportation. Rather, Sentamu's agreement to consent to his own deportation led to the entry of a final administrative order of deportation before his sentencing, thereby relieving the INS of the burden of initiating and completing the lengthy deportation process and allowing the agency to devote the scarce resources, time, and effort thatit would otherwise have been required to expend on Sentamu to the detention and deportation of other criminal aliens. Because a final order of deportation was entered against Sentamu before the imposition of his sentence, the INS will not be required to use its limited detention space to detain Sentamu after his term of incarceration ends. 38 Id. at5. The court therefore adhered to its conclusion thatSentamu's consent to deportation constituted an atypical circumstance warranting a downward departure under Guidelines §5K2.0. 39 A judgment of conviction was entered sentencing Sentamu principally to 27 months' imprisonment, albeit stating inaccurately thatthe district court had determined thatthe Guideline Range was 27 months to 33 months, that[t]he sentence is within the guideline range, and that the court finds no reason to depart from the sentence called for by application of the guidelines. (Judgment dated May 18, 1999 (Judgment), at4.) The government has appealed, as permitted under 18 U.S.C. §§3742(b)(2) or (3) (1994) (permitting appeal by the government where sentence was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines or is less than ... the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range).