Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
-
Upload
emily-babay -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
1/21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)v. ) Docket No. 1:11CR235
) Hon. Gerald Bruce Lee
EDOBOR FRANK OKENWA, ) Sentencing Date: September 16, 2011
)
Defendant. )
DEFENDANTS POSITION ON SENTENCING FACTORS
Pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 6A1.3 of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or the Guidelines), and this
Courts Policy Regarding Procedures to be Followed in Guideline Sentencing, the
defendant, Edobor Okenwa, through counsel, states that he has received and reviewed the
Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) prepared in this case and submits the following
corrections, objections, and argument.
CORRECTIONS AND OBJECTIONS TO THE PSR
Mr. Okenwa has no objections to the Guidelines calculations, but one factual
correction to the PSR; namely that paragraph 47 be amended to reflect that his father,
Bernard Okenwa, is now deceased.
SENTENCING ARGUMENT
On May 18, 2011, Mr. Okenwa pled guilty to one count of attempted importation
of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. 952 and 963. The penalties for this offense are ten
(10) years to life imprisonment (ten years of which is a mandatory minimum), a fine of no
more than $10 million, and at least five (5) years of supervised release. The advisory
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 21 PageID# 96
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
2/21
Guidelines range for Mr. Okenwa is forty-six to fifty-seven (46-57) months of
imprisonment (or 3.83 to 4.75 years). For the following reasons, Mr. Okenwa believes
that a below-Guidelines sentence is appropriate in this case. As such, he asks the Court to
vary downward from the Guidelines range and sentence him to no more than thirty-six
(36) months of imprisonment. Such a sentence is sufficient but not more than necessary1
to address the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
I. The Sentencing Factors
Congress requires district courts to impose the least amount of imprisonment
necessary to accomplish the sentencing purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The2
factors to consider include: (a) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
1 As Mr. Okenwa qualifies for sentencing under the safety valve provision of
18 U.S.C. 3553(f), the Court has the authority to impose a sentence below the ten year
mandatory minimum. PSR 73. The safety valve provision survives the Supreme
Courts decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). SeeUnited States v.
Cardenas-Juarez, 469 F.3d 1331, 1334 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chambers, No.
05-CR-95, 2008 WL 687110, at *3 (E.D. Wis. 2008); United States v. Boyd, 496 F. Supp.2d 977, 985 (E.D. Ark. 2007); United States v. Cherry, 366 F. Supp. 2d 372, 376 (E.D.
Va. 2005) (Jackson, D.J.); United States v. Duran, 383 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1347 (D. Utah
2005). Indeed, since the Guidelines are advisory, the Court has the power to sentence
below the Guidelines range in this case. See Boyd, 496 F. Supp. 2d at 985 (sentencing a
safety-valve eligible defendant to below the Guidelines range);Duran, 383 F. Supp. 2d at
1347 (stating that the Guidelines range is advisory in safety-valve cases postBooker).
2 The four purposes of sentencing are: retribution (to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment),
deterrence, incapacitation (to protect the public from further crimes), and rehabilitation(to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care,
or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner). 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2).
2
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 21 PageID# 97
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
3/21
history and characteristics of the defendant; (b) the kinds of sentences available; (c) the
advisory Guidelines range; (d) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; (e)
the need for restitution; and (f) the need for the sentence to reflect the following: the
seriousness of the offense, promotion of respect for the law and just punishment for the
offense, provision of adequate deterrence, protection of the public from future crimes, and
providing the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or
other correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
Upon consideration of these factors, a sentencing court may find that the case falls
outside the heartland contemplated by the Guidelines, the Guidelines sentence itself
fails properly to reflect the 3553(a) considerations, or that the case warrants a
different sentence regardless. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007). While a
district court must begin its analysis by correctly calculating the advisory sentencing
range, it is then free in light of the other statutory sentencing factors to impose an entirely
different sentence. As such, a sentencing court is free to disagree, based on the other
3553(a) sentencing factors, with the Guidelines rough approximation of the
appropriate sentence for any given case. Id. at 350.
In sum, the Sentencing Guidelines are simply an advisory tool to be considered
alongside other statutory considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). See Kimbrough
v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). The
3
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 21 PageID# 98
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
4/21
Guidelines cannot be used as a substitute for a sentencing courts independent
determination of a just sentence based upon consideration of the statutory sentencing
factors. Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 129 S. Ct. 890, 892 (2009); Spears v.
United States, 555 U.S. 261, 264 (2009).
Finally, the Supreme Court has recently cautioned that [o]ur cases do not allow a
sentencing court to presume that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is
reasonable and that the Guidelines are not only not mandatory on sentencing courts;
they are also not to bepresumedreasonable. Nelson, 129 S. Ct. at 892 (emphasis in
original). In other words, sentencing courts commit legal error by using a Sentencing
Guidelines range as a default to be imposed unless a basis exists to impose a sentence
outside that range.
II. A Below-Guidelines Sentence for Mr. Okenwa of No More Than Thirty-Six
Months of Imprisonment is Sufficient but Not Greater than Necessary to Satisfy
the Purposes of Sentencing.
The circumstances of Mr. Okenwas case show that no more than a thirty-six
month term of imprisonment is appropriate to achieve the purposes of sentencing and is
otherwise consistent with the statutory factors. At the very least, the Court should impose
a sentence that is no higher than the low-end of the Guidelines range (forty-six months).
4
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 4 of 21 PageID# 99
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
5/21
A. Mr. Okenwas Background and Character
Mr. Okenwa is a forty-five year old Nigerian citizen, who was born in Benin City,
Nigeria. He had one full brother, who died at a young age. As a result of tribal wars in
Nigeria, Mr. Okenwas parents, who were from rival tribes, divorced when Mr. Okenwa
was only five. Thereafter, he was raised by his father and his fathers three wives, who
had at least six other children. Mr. Okenwa recalls that more than a dozen people lived in
the household. PSR 47-48.
Mr. Okenwas father, Bernard Okenwa, was a trader who imported goods for sale
in Nigeria, including food, medicines and drug store supplies. He sold these items in a
drug store in Benin City. At the age of seven, Mr. Okenwa began working at this store.
Initially, he stocked shelves, priced merchandise, and operated the cash register.
Eventually, his father taught him the trading aspects of the business, and Mr. Okenwa was
given responsibility for importing merchandise. He did this and other jobs for the store
for approximately thirteen years. PSR 47, 59.
Mr. Okenwas work for his father was largely unpaid. Thus, at the age of twenty-
two, Mr. Okenwa decided to leave home and obtain work elsewhere. He was hired as a
machine operator for Marklint Medical Complex, which makes pharmaceutical cotton.
While working there, Mr. Okenwa realized that he could supply the cotton to the factory
at better prices, and so, he began trading on behalf of the factory. This eventually led to
5
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 5 of 21 PageID# 100
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
6/21
the creation of the first of Mr. Okenwas two trading companies: Besomina International
Company, which was created in approximately 1989. Besominas primary business was
the importation of vehicles and vehicle parts from Germany and other countries. Mr.
Okenwa resold these items in Nigeria. PSR 57-59.
Then in 1999, Mr. Okenwa, with a partner, started a second trading company
called Cubes Antelope West Africa Limited. This company imported food, clothing and
some construction materials. Both trading companies required Mr. Okenwa to travel to
other countries, including Germany and the United States, to buy goods. In good years,
Mr. Okenwas combined annual income from these companies was approximately
$50,000 (USD), which was enough to support his wife, Esther Okenwa, and their three
children, ages seventeen, fifteen, and thirteen. All of them live together in an apartment
in Lagos, Nigeria. PSR 50-51, 56-58.
Mr. Okenwas companies, however, were not always profitable. By early 2011, he
owed tens of thousands of dollars to creditors and investors. One particularly bad
transaction was a contract to purchase car parts from Malaysia. Mr. Okenwa paid
approximately $40,000 for the parts, but never received the merchandise. PSR 61.
Word of his financial problems spread around his social circle and business
acquaintances. Eventually, in early 2011, a man, introduced to Mr. Okenwa through a
mutual acquaintance, approached Mr. Okenwa with a plan to help solve his financial
6
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 6 of 21 PageID# 101
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
7/21
problems. As described below, this plan required him to travel to Uganda, meet up with
unknown people, and agree to be used as a drug courier to the United States. In his
desperate financial state, Mr. Okenwa unfortunately agreed to the plan. PSR 29-30.
Mr. Okenwas character, however, should not be judged solely from this one
criminal act. In his forty-five years, with this one exception, he has lived a law-abiding
life dedicated to hard work and raising a family. He is a self-starter who worked his way
up from a stock boy (for no pay) to a small business owner making enough money to
support himself and a family of four. In the process, he has shown drive and initiative.
Mr. Okenwa also is a religious man, and after many years away from school, at the age of
forty-one, attended college to study religion. His studies culminated in his receipt of a
college degree in Theology from Redeem Bible College in 2007. PSR 55. It is thus
that Mr. Okenwa acutely knows that what he did was not only criminally wrong, but also
a break with his faith. He asks only that the Court recognize the whole of his character
and the circumstances that led him to commit the crime.
B. Mr. Okenwa Committed the Offense Conduct at a Time of Extreme
Vulnerability and Played a Minor Role in the Overall Offense.
The offense conduct occurred on March 24, 2011, when Mr. Okenwa was arrested
for attempting to import heroin into the United States. He was taken into custody by
Customs officials at Dulles International Airport after arriving on a flight originating from
Uganda and transiting through Europe. Inside his abdomen were eighty-eight pellets
7
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 7 of 21 PageID# 102
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
8/21
containing 1.44 kilograms of a mixture and substance containing heroin. Mr. Okenwa
swallowed these pellets at the direction of international drug traffickers who, with the lure
of easy money, enticed him to come to Uganda from his native country of Nigeria. Once
in Uganda, these traffickers explained to Mr. Okenwa that his financial problems could be
solved if he agreed to swallow the pellets, fly to the United States and meet up with an
unnamed contact at the arriving airport. Mr. Okenwa was promised at least $10,000 to be
paid upon delivery of the drugs, but that amount would increase the more pellets he
swallowed. PSR 27-31.
Mr. Okenwa swallowed the pellets over the course of hours of encouragement by
the traffickers, who brought the condom-sized pellets out on a tray (like food), massaged
his shoulders, and gave him fluids to keep him swallowing more and more. He had to
take breaks to rest and occasionally vomit. Amazingly, he swallowed eighty-eight
pellets, enough to kill him multiple times over if any erupted. The traffickers then made3
3 Heroin works on the central nervous system, slowing heartbeat and
breathing. According to one website,
Depending on purity and the user, a lethal dose of heroin may
range from 200 to 500mg, but hardened addicts have survived
doses of 1800mg and over. However, with street heroin there
is no absolutely certain "safe dosage". It depends on
tolerance, amount and purity taken. Overdose can occur
when a dose taken is greater than that you're used to. A
tolerable dose for an addict could be fatal to a first-time user.
Heroin Overdose, DRUG-OVERDOSE.COM, http://www.drug-
8
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 8 of 21 PageID# 103
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
9/21
Mr. Okenwas flight arrangements, purchased his ticket, gave him some cash, and drove
him to the airport with instructions to call them in Uganda once he landed in the United
States. At that time, he would be told where to go and who to meet. Mr. Okenwa did not
even have the full names of most of the traffickers, who identified themselves, if at all, by
first names or nicknames.
Mr. Okenwa then began the long flight from Uganda to Dulles Airport. The
traffickers gave him muscle relaxers and anti-diarrhea medication to delay a bowel
movement. His total travel time was approximately seventeen hours and by the time he
arrived at Dulles, Mr. Okenwa was in so much discomfort that the Customs Agents had
little difficulty in surmising that he had swallowed contraband. (Mr. Okenwa has related4
to his counsel that he was in so much pain that he felt like dying.) Eventually he was
transported to a local hospital where an x-ray revealed the pellets and he was then
arrested.
It is an understatement to say that Mr. Okenwa was used as a tool, and an
expendable one at that. He is the classic mule who was told what to do, when to do it,
overdose.com/heroin.htm (last visited July 27, 2011).
4 At the preliminary hearing, one of the agents testified that when he arrived
at the Customs counter, Mr. Okenwa appeared to be standing awkwardly. Another
agents report states that Mr. Okenwas abdomen was noticeably distended and rigid.See also PSR 26 (summarizing Customs reports stating that Mr. Okenwas abdominal
area [was] rigid and swollen).
9
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 9 of 21 PageID# 104
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
10/21
and where to do it. He did not have any decision-making authority over his itinerary,
points and times of departure and arrival, or what to do once he arrived. Everything was
arranged for him; he merely had to carry the load from point A to point B. He was not
the source of the drugs, did not package them, and was not the intended recipient (or
seller) of the heroin. He was not even informed of the nature of the drugs that he was
carrying.
Moreover, Mr. Okenwa acted as a mule only this one time. He is less culpable
than the traffickers who arranged his trip, provided him with the drugs, and those to
whom he would have delivered the drugs (who would have sold them) had he not been
apprehended at the airport. The decision by the other participants to place Mr. Okenwas
life at grave risk by directing him to swallow eighty-eight pellets of heroin, instead of
packing them in his luggage, demonstrates the traffickers view that his role in the offense
was minor, and his life was expendable.
Accordingly, comparing Mr. Okenwas culpability to that of the average
participant in an importation offense either in this particular scheme, or in drug
offenses involving mules generally his culpability was substantially less . . . than the
average participant who provided the drugs, packaged them, or intended to receive them.
See U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). As such, the PSR correctly concludes that Mr.
Okenwa was a minor participant in the offense conduct, justifying a lower offense level
10
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 10 of 21 PageID# 105
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
11/21
pursuant to Guidelines section 3B1.2(b). PSR 34;see also id. at Addendum to the PSR5
at A-1 (overruling the governments objection to the minor role reduction and finding that
Mr. Okenwas actions were consistent with that of a typical mule with limited
knowledge of the drug quantity and travel arrangements).
According Mr. Okenwa minor role status also is consistent with the treatment of
two other recent mule cases in this district. The first, Yomade Aborishade (E.D. Va.
No. 11CR259-GBL), was a swallower like Mr. Okenwa. Also like Mr. Okewnwa, he
traveled from Nigeria with a large amount of heroin (1.8 kilos) with very limited
knowledge of the larger enterprise and grave risk to his own life. The PSR recommended
(and the government did not object) to the two-level minor role reduction and the Court
applied it in that case. See Aborishade Guidelines Worksheets attached as Exhibit 3 (filed
Aug. 8, 2011). The second defendant, Joao Borgas (E.D. Va. No. 10CR430-CMH),
carried the narcotics (16.4 kilos of cocaine) in his luggage. Like Messrs. Okenwa and6
Aborishade, he had limited knowledge of the operation other than his part in it (carrying
5 Under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2, a defendant is entitled to a two, three, or four point
reduction in his offense level if he played a minor to minimal role in the offense of
conviction. A defendant is entitled to such a reduction if he plays a part in committing
the offense that makes him substantially less culpable than the average participant. See
U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). More specifically, the two-level adjustment is intended to
cover a defendant who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could
not be described as minimal. Id. at cmt. n.5.
6 10.4 kilograms were carried in his luggage and another 6 kilos were carried
in the luggage of a confederate.
11
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 11 of 21 PageID# 106
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
12/21
the cocaine from Argentina to Amsterdam via Dulles International Airport). He too
received a two-level minor role reduction without any objection. See Borgas Guidelines
Worksheets attached as Exhibit 4 (filed Mar. 10, 2011).
Mr. Okenwas offense conduct, as it relates to the minor role adjustment, is
materially indistinguishable from these two other drug mules cases and like them, the
minor role adjustment is properly applied. In sum, his lack of knowledge or
understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others
is indicative of a role as a minor participant. U.S.S.G. 3B1.2 cmt. n.4 (discussing the
adjustment for minimal participant under U.S.S.G. 3B1.2(a)).
That said, Mr. Okenwa does not contend that these mitigating facts excuse his
conduct; indeed, he admits and has accepted responsibility for his wrongful actions. See
PSR 36-39. Rather, these facts provide a useful context for this Court because, [i]n
determining a sentence, it is worth attempting to understand (as best one can) what set a
defendant upon [an] illegal course. United States v. Blake, 89 F. Supp. 2d 328, 332
(E.D.N.Y. 2000). Because the Guidelines are predicated primarily on mechanically
defined just deserts, courts must look to the specific circumstances surrounding a
defendants actions. United States v. Hawkins, 380 F. Supp. 2d 143, 151 (E.D.N.Y.
2005). Given the limited and isolated nature of his wrongful conduct, his acceptance of
12
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 12 of 21 PageID# 107
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
13/21
responsibility and cooperation, and the circumstances giving rise to his criminal activity,7
Mr. Okenwa respectfully submits that just deserts would be a below-Guidelines
sentence.
C. The Drug Quantity Table Exaggerates Mr. Okenwas Culpability
All of Mr. Okenwas thirty-two offense level points come from the drug quantity
table in U.S.S.G. 2D1.1. That table is meant to be a proxy for culpability; the greater
the quantity of drugs corresponds to a higher offense level and higher advisory Guideline
range. This scheme makes sense in the mine-run drug case where a defendant knows or
has some say in the quantity of the drug to be distributed or imported. For instance, a
drug seller who makes a sale to an undercover officer knows how much he is selling and
the price. His culpability is correctly measured against his knowledge and the profit he
reaps from what he sells.
However, using weight as a proxy for culpability does not make sense for cases
like Mr. Okenwas. He was never told, and did not know, how much of the drug he was
carrying. He was just told to keep swallowing pellet after pellet. Nor did he know how
much the drugs were worth, how much they would be sold for, or who/how they were to
be sold. For that matter, Mr. Okenwa was not even told what type of drug he was
carrying. Under these circumstances, it is unjust to ascribe the same level of culpability
7 Mr. Okenwa promised to cooperate with the government in his Plea
Agreement and has done so. See Plea Agmt. 10.
13
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 13 of 21 PageID# 108
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
14/21
to him that the drug quantity table ascribes to dealers/traffickers who have far greater
information about the criminal enterprise. As the Supreme Court recently reminded
sentencing courts, the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.
Pepper v. United States , 131 S. Ct. 1229, 1239-40 (2011) (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Moreover, the drug table does not take into account how longa defendant has been
engaged in the drug activity. For example, someone who has made dozens of small sales
of heroin receives the same offense level score as a mule who delivers the same weight
on one occasion. For defendants like Mr. Okenwa, this result is particularly harsh given
that his criminal conduct occurred for a very short period (a matter of days) in a life that
had been crime-free for forty-five years.
Further, one of the reasons for the high sentencing ranges in drug cases is to
encourage cooperation in exchange for a sentence reduction. Where as here, a defendant
is a minor participant and thus has limited knowledge to provide, he is punished
according to the weight of drugs but unlike a more culpable defendant has no realistic
opportunity to reduce his sentence through substantial cooperation.
In short, the rationale behind the drug quantity table does not fit Mr. Okenwas
individual case. Therefore his advisory Guideline range, which is driven entirely by that
table, is excessive and should be accorded less deference than the other 3553(a) factors.
14
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 14 of 21 PageID# 109
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
15/21
See Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261, 266 (2009) (explaining that when the
Commission fails to fulfill its institutional role, a district court can vary from the
Guidelines based on [a]policy disagreement with them, and . . . based on an
individualized determination that they yield an excessive sentence in a particular case)
(emphasis in original).
D. A Below-Guidelines Sentence Serves the Needs of Deterrence and
Protection of the Public.
A below-Guidelines sentence also is warranted given the diminished need to afford
deterrence and to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C.
3553(a)(2)(B), (C). Mr. Okenwa has no prior arrests or criminal convictions. PSR 40-
44 . Given that before now he has never spent a day in jail, it is simply not necessary to
imprison him for a long period of time in order to deter him (or others similarly situated)
from committing further crimes or to protect the public. Long imprisonment, therefore,
would have a substantial deterrent effect not accounted for by his Guidelines range. See
United States v. Mishoe, 241 F.3d 214, 220 (2d Cir. 2001) (recognizing that a large
disparity between a defendants prior sentences and potential sentence provides a
deterrent effect that is not accounted for by the Guidelines).
In addition, a three-year sentence of imprisonment is a serious punishment that
satisfies the retributive, deterrent, and incapacitation goals of sentencing. That sentence
will fully conveyindeed, has already conveyedto Mr. Okenwa the seriousness of his
15
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 15 of 21 PageID# 110
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
16/21
conduct by depriving him of substantial time that he could otherwise have spent
providing for his family. Moreover, such a sentence is sufficient to afford deterrence
because Mr. Okenwa presents no special problems of recidivism: He is a first-time, non-
violent offender who gave an uncounseled confession to law enforcement agents shortly
after his arrest, continues to cooperate with the government post-arrest, and fully accepts
responsibility for his illegal conduct. His likelihood of recidivism is slight, given his
remorse and cooperation, and considering that his offense arose in the midst of financial
vulnerability. He has never before displayed criminal tendencies, and no more than
thirty-six months of incarceration is enough to dissuade him from further criminal
wrongdoing and to punish him fully. Indeed, his personal history, his cooperation and8
candor, and his letter to the Court (attached as Exhibit 1), reflect that he is a decent, hard-
working, caring man whose criminal conduct is a deviation from a life of law-abiding
behavior. See also Letter from Charles Aideyan (half-brother in Nigeria) attached as
Exhibit 2 (stating that to all our knowledge as members of the immediate family and I,
8 Although not reflected in the PSR, Mr. Okenwa has already begun his
rehabilitation by attending daily bible study classes at the Alexandria Detention Centerand providing informal counseling to other inmates. He also is a unit worker with
cleaning responsibilities within his unit.
16
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 16 of 21 PageID# 111
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
17/21
as the head, to the knowledge of his wife and the Christian communities around where he
lived . . . that not even once did we ever see him exhibit any such criminal tendency).9
Additionally, there is only a negligible risk that any future criminal conduct on his
part could affect the public because he will be immediately deported to Nigeria after
serving his sentence. Cf. United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez, 365 F. Supp. 2d 728, 73310
(E.D. Va. 2005) (Lee, D.J.) (noting the decreased need to protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant when he will ultimately be removed and sent out of the
country); United States v. Biheiri, 356 F. Supp. 2d 589, 603 (E.D. Va. 2005) (Ellis, D.J.)
(observing that the goal of protecting the public was of little import where the
defendant was going to be deported to Egypt immediately following his release from
custody).
While acknowledging that his conduct in this case is serious, Mr. Okenwa submits
that sentencing him within the Guidelines would unduly punish him for his actions while
simultaneously having a detrimental effect on society as a whole. Chief among Mr.
Okenwas concerns is the welfare of his wife and three minor children, who live in Lagos,
9 Mr. Aideyans letter also discloses the unfortunate news that upon hearing
of his sons arrest, Mr. Okenwas father [suffered] cardiac arrest and six hours later,
died. This untimely death is but another punishment Mr. Okenwa must endure because
of his illegal conduct.
10 As part of his Plea Agreement, Mr. Okenwa has agreed to be deported
following service of his sentence. PSR 12.
17
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 17 of 21 PageID# 112
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
18/21
Nigeria. When Mr. Okenwa departed Nigeria in March 2011, his wife, a homemaker,
expected him to return within a few weeks. Mr. Okenwa made no provision for his
family beyond that brief period. His family is wholly dependant on Mr. Okenwas
income. PSR 50. He needs to return to his family as soon as possible so that they do
not unduly suffer for his actions.
E. A Below-Guidelines Sentence Will Promote Sentencing Uniformity
In United States v. Aborishade (E.D. Va. No. 11CR259-GBL), mentioned above,
this Court imposed a thirty-six month term of imprisonment for similar conduct to that of
Mr. Okenwa. See court documents attached as Exhibit 3. Both defendants were mules
from Nigeria who swallowed and transported a large quantity of heroin (100 pellets or
1.825 kg for Mr. Aborishade and 88 pellets or 1.44 kg for Mr. Okenwa) to Dulles
International Airport within a week of each other (March 30, 2011 for Mr. Aborishade vs.
March 24, 2011 for Mr. Okenwa). Both received a minor role adjustment for their
limited knowledge of and participation in the offense. Similarly, the Guidelines range for
both defendants is identical (46 to 57 months) based upon an offense level total of 23 and
a criminal history category of I. Further, the motives for Messrs. Aborishade and
Okenwa are similar: they were both deeply in debt and desperately needed the money
offered to them upon delivery of the narcotics. Moreover, the amounts promised to them
18
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 18 of 21 PageID# 113
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
19/21
are similar ($10,400 for Mr. Aborishade and at least $10,000 for Mr. Okenwa). Lastly,11
both defendants ultimately confessed to the offense conduct post-Miranda, pled guilty
and accepted responsibility for their actions.
Given these similarities, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct,
18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6), a sentence for Mr. Okenwa of no more than thirty-six months of
imprisonment (the same as Mr. Aborishade) is appropriate in this case.
CONCLUSION
In sum, a below-Guidelines sentence is sufficient but not more than necessary to
meet the goals of sentencing considering Mr. Okenwas (1) good background and
character; (2) reasons for agreeing to commit the offense; (3) minor participation in the
offense conduct; (4) absence of any prior criminal history; (5) acceptance of
responsibility and cooperation; and (6) family circumstances. Moreover, such a sentence
is appropriate given that the drug table exaggerates Mr. Okenwas culpability, there is a
lessened need for specific deterrence and protection of the public due to his lack of
criminal history and probable deportation, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities.
For theses reasons Mr. Okenwa respectfully asks the Court to impose a below-
Guidelines sentence of no more than thirty-six months of imprisonment and to not impose
11 One half of this amount was debt forgiveness and the other half was to be
paid upon delivery of the drugs.
19
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 19 of 21 PageID# 114
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
20/21
a fine given his inability to pay. In the alternative, Mr. Okenwa asks that his sentence not
exceed forty-six months, which is the low-end of the Guidelines range.
Respectfully submitted,
EDOBOR F. OKENWA
By Counsel
/s/
Kenneth P. Troccoli
Virginia Bar Number 27177
Attorney for the DefendantAssistant Federal Public Defender
1650 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(703) 600-0870 (T)
(703) 600-0880 (F)
[email protected] (e-mail)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 9, 2011, I will electronically file the foregoing
pleading with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a
notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:
Kara Martin Traster, Esq.
Special Assistant United States Attorney
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(703) 299-3700
Pursuant to the Electronic Case Filing Policies and Procedures, a courtesy copy of
the foregoing pleading will be delivered to Chambers within one business day of the
electronic filing and to Probation Officer Bethany Erding via inter-office mail.
20
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 20 of 21 PageID# 115
-
8/4/2019 Ebodor Okenwa Defense Sentencing Memo
21/21
/s/
Kenneth P. Troccoli
Virginia Bar Number 27177
Attorney for the DefendantAssistant Federal Public Defender
1650 King Street, Suite 500
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(703) 600-0870 (T)
(703) 600-0880 (F)
[email protected] (e-mail)
21
Case 1:11-cr-00235-GBL Document 26 Filed 09/09/11 Page 21 of 21 PageID# 116