United States v. Abiola Oginni
690 F. App'x 143
4th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Abiola O. Oginni pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day imprisonment.
- The district court ordered immediate restitution of $58,000.
- The plea agreement included the Government’s promise to make a sentencing recommendation (as to base offense level).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief raising two issues: whether the Government breached the plea agreement in its sentencing recommendation and whether the restitution order was improper/too high.
- The Fourth Circuit ordered supplemental briefs and reviewed unobjected-to issues for plain error.
- The panel affirmed the conviction (finding any breach did not affect substantial rights) but vacated and remanded the restitution order for failure to make required findings about Oginni’s ability to pay before ordering immediate payment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Government breached plea agreement by not recommending a base offense level of 6 | Gov’t failed to make the promised recommendation (breach) | Breach did not alter sentencing outcome; court applied correct Guidelines | Court: Gov’t breached, but no plain-error prejudice; conviction affirmed |
| Whether district court erred in ordering $58,000 restitution due immediately without considering ability to pay under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2) | Restitution order was improper because court did not consider Oginni’s financial resources; immediate payment unreasonable | MVRA requires full restitution, but scheduling/payment terms must account for defendant’s finances; court argued order was proper | Court: Vacated restitution order and remanded because district court made no factual findings about ability to pay before ordering immediate payment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel’s iffy appeals)
- United States v. Warner, 820 F.3d 678 (4th Cir.) (breach where Government promised a sentencing recommendation and then disavowed it at sentencing)
- United States v. Tate, 845 F.3d 571 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640 (4th Cir.) (prejudice standard for plain error in plea cases)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error prejudice affects outcome)
- United States v. Cohen, 459 F.3d 490 (4th Cir.) (appeal waiver unenforceable if Government breaches plea)
- United States v. Seignious, 757 F.3d 155 (4th Cir.) (plain-error review of restitution orders)
- United States v. Grant, 715 F.3d 552 (4th Cir.) (MVRA requires full restitution to each victim)
- United States v. Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711 (4th Cir.) (district court must make factual findings about ability to pay before ordering immediate restitution)