UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-60254
Summary Calendar
TROY ALEXANDER HOLMAN,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(18 USA 4106A)
December 24, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On October 4, 1994, Troy Alexander Holman (Holman) was
sentenced in Mexico to an 11 year term of imprisonment upon his
conviction of transporting 3,199.5 grams of heroin in Mexico City,
Mexico on May 20, 1994. Holman appealed his sentence and
successfully had it reduced to ten years. On October 10, 1995,
Holman was transferred to the United States to serve his sentence
pursuant to the terms of the United States-Mexico treaty on the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
execution of penal sentences.
Following a hearing on February 26, 1996, the Parole
Commission ordered Holman to continue to serve the full term of his
Mexican sentence, ten years less good time, and to serve a 12-month
period of supervised release following his release from prison.
The Parole Commission determined that Holman’s guideline range for
a comparable offense under United States law was 151-188 months
based on offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of I.
In making its decision to have Holman serve the full term of his
sentence, the Parole Commission relied upon the fact that Holman’s
120-month Mexican sentence was already substantially below the
applicable United States Sentencing Guideline range of 151-188
months. Holman requested a downward departure based on his alleged
mistreatment in Mexico and his contention that the Mexican court
wrongly convicted him of transporting heroin. The Parole
Commission rejected Holman’s request for a downward departure.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the
record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. We
review the Parole Commission’s determination de novo. Molano-Garza
v. United States Parole Commission, 965 F.2d 20, 23 (5th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1065 (1993). We will uphold the
sentence unless it (1) was imposed in violation of law; (2) was
imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing
guidelines; (3) is outside the applicable guideline range, and is
2
unreasonable or (4) was imposed for an offense for which there is
no applicable sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. 18
U.S.C. § 3742(e); and see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f). A review of this
record satisfies us that there is no basis, either in law or fact,
for changing the determination of the Parole Commission.
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.
3