In Odili v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No. 05-12717 (Jan. 10, 2007), the Court rejected a defendant’s challenge to the sentence imposed by the U.S. Parole Commission, pursuant to a treaty transfer, on a U.S. citizen transferred from Panama after serving two years of his 100-month sentence for drug trafficking. The Parole Commission had reduced the sentence to 81 months total time, to be followed by a period of 60 months supervised release or up to a total which, combined with the term of incarceration, would equal the original 100 month sentence. The Parole Commission’s sentence reduction from 100 to 81 months reflected in part Odili’s mistreatment while in a Panamanian jail, and his substantial assistance to authorities.
The Court rejected Odili’s claim that his testimony established that he was entitled to a mitigating role downward sentence adjustment. Citing U.S. v. Rodriguez de Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc), the Court noted that the Parole Commission was free to reject Odili’s testimony for lack of credibility.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Parole Commission should have also reduced the term of supervised release when it reduced the term of incarceration. The Court found no violation of any statute in the Commission’s failure to do so.
The Court rejected Odili’s change to the drug quantity determination, noting that Odili had admitted the quantity.
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the Parole Commission erred in treating the Guidelines as mandatory, post-Booker. The Court agreed that a Parole Commission treaty transfer sentence determination should treat the Guidelines as advisory. However, the Court found that the Parole Commission had in fact treated the Guidelines as advisory. Further, rejecting Odili’s contrary contention, the Court found the sentence to be reasonable.
