Adetokunbo Adejumo v. United States, 908 F.3d 357

Adejumo pleaded guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft and admitted the fraud involved over $1,000,000; plea agreement contemplated a 16‑level Guidelines increase for $1M–$2.5M loss and an acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction.
He remained on pretrial release but was arrested for an alleged assault on his girlfriend; at the revocation hearing Adejumo testified and the magistrate disbelieved him, revoking release.
At sentencing the district court found Adejumo committed perjury at the revocation hearing, applied a two‑level obstruction enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1), and denied the acceptance‑of‑responsibility reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1), resulting in a 124‑month sentence; this was affirmed on direct appeal.
Adejumo filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on (1) counsel’s failure to advise him of the risks of testifying at the revocation hearing and (2) counsel’s failure to object to or contest the stipulated loss amount at sentencing.
The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; the Eighth Circuit granted COA limited to the two issues above and affirmed the denial. Judge Kelly dissented, arguing an evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Adejumo of risks of testifying at revocation hearing	Adejumo: counsel should have warned that testifying could lead to perjury finding, obstruction enhancement, and loss of acceptance credit; he would not have testified if warned	Government/Court: oath and ordinary litigation unpredictability meant counsel was not required to list speculative consequences; reasonable counsel need not catalogue remote risks	Denied — no ineffective assistance: oath sufficed re perjury risk and counsel’s conduct was reasonable under Strickland
Whether counsel was ineffective for conceding loss amount at plea/sentencing	Adejumo: plea‑hearing statements were ambiguous and he understood he could challenge loss; counsel should have objected to reduce Guidelines range	Government/Court: plea admissions unambiguously bound him to >$1M; counsel reasonably conceded the stipulated amount	Denied — counsel’s concession was objectively reasonable given plea admissions and change‑of‑plea colloquy

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (oath imposes duty to tell truth; no requirement to warn witness not to perjure)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel’s duty clear when consequences are truly clear)
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (perjury findings and consequences)
Calkins v. United States, 795 F.3d 896 (§ 2255 ineffective assistance context)
Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238 (when § 2255 hearings are required)
United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513 (Eighth Circuit decision on direct appeal affirming sentence)