Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 93-2219
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLIFF NNANNA,
a/k/a JOHNIE D. TRAVIS ETC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
- - - - - - - - - -
(November 1, 1993)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ochuru Ochuru, a/k/a Cliff Nnanna (Nnanna), has appealed his
sentence following his guilty plea conviction for bank fraud.
Nnanna, a Nigerian national, was involved in a wide-ranging
scheme in which he and other Nigerian males opened fraudulent
bank accounts into which they deposited stolen corporate checks
for large sums. Nnanna withdrew approximately $90,000 from these
accounts before he was arrested.
Nnanna filed a number of objections to the Pre-sentence
Investigative Report (PSR), including several objections to the
probation officer's calculation of the amount of intended loss.
The probation officer accepted several of Nnanna's objections and
revised the amount of the intended loss downward, with the result

No. 93-2219
-2-
that Nnanna's sentence range under the guidelines was reduced
from 21-27 months to 18-24 months. The probation officer
rejected other objections as not supported by the record and
noted that most of the rejected objections were irrelevant to the
computation of Nnanna's sentence. The substantive objections
that the probation officer rejected included objections to the
consideration of conduct for which Nnanna had been convicted on
state charges, the recommendation of a two-level downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility instead of a three-
level downward adjustment, and the calculation of the termination
date of Nnanna's prior probation. The probation officer revised
his original recommendation of a 27-month sentence downward and
recommended that Nnanna receive a 24-month sentence.
At sentencing, the district court stated, "[a]side from the
corrections already made, and a number of them were ministerial,
but aside [sic] the corrections already made in the presentence
investigation report, specifically the amended report, the
matters not acted on in the defense motion are overruled. The
PSI is adopted in its current form."

Nnanna argues on appeal that the district court violated
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D) because it did not "clearly rule" on
each of his written objections to the Pre-Sentence Investigation
Report (PSR). The district court complied with Rule 32 when it
rejected Nnanna's objections and specifically adopted the amended
PSR. See United States v. Mora, 994 F.2d 1129, 1141 (5th Cir.
1993) (adoption of findings of PSR sufficient factual
determination of quantity of drugs under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32).

No. 93-2219
-3-
Nnanna also urges on appeal that he should have received a
lower sentence because he is an alien. After the district court
had adopted the PSR, Nnanna's attorney requested that he be
sentenced at the lower end of the guidelines because, as an alien
under an order of deportation, he was ineligible for release to
home custody or a half-way house. The attorney also urged that a
lower sentence was appropriate due to the lack of federal prison
space. The district court rejected his argument and sentenced
Nnanna to a term of 24 months imprisonment, the maximum
guidelines sentence.
Nnanna suggests that the district court abused its
discretion when it imposed the maximum sentence under the
guidelines. He argues that this has the effect of an upward
departure because he will serve his sentence under more severe
conditions than a citizen of this country.
"Review of sentences imposed under the guidelines is limited
to a determination whether the sentence was imposed in violation
of law, as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing
guidelines, or was outside of the applicable guideline range and
was unreasonable." United States v. Matovsky, 935 F.2d 719, 721
(5th Cir. 1991) (citing 18 U.S.C. � 3742(e)). This Court will
not review the district court's refusal to depart from the
guidelines unless the refusal was in violation of the law.
United States v. Mitchell, 964 F.2d 454, 462 (5th Cir. 1992).
The guidelines do not specifically address alienage.
U.S.S.G. � 5H1.10, p.s., provides that national origin is
irrelevant to the sentencing court's determination. Section

No. 93-2219
-4-
5H1.10 is not dispositive of the issue, because "alienage" and
"national origin" are not synonymous.
The Court declines to consider Nnanna's argument to the
extent that his appeal may be construed to allege that his
sentence within the guidelines is too harsh due to his alien
status. Mitchell, 964 F.2d at 462.
Nnanna's appeal may also be construed to allege that his
sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district
court should have departed downward due to his alien status.
Collateral consequences, such as the likelihood of deportation or
ineligibility for more lenient conditions of imprisonment, that
an alien may incur following a federal conviction are not a basis
for downward departure. See United States v. Restrepo, 999 F.2d
640, 644 (2nd Cir. 1993), petition for cert filed, (U.S. Sept.
13, 1993) (No. 93-5968); United States v. Alverez-Cardenas, 902
F.2d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Soto, 918 F.2d
882, 884-85 (10th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.