United States v. Adekunle Olufemi Adetiloye
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9124
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Adekunle Adetiloye pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and was sentenced to 214 months' imprisonment.
- Government sought restitution and forfeiture based on a large, multi-victim fraud scheme involving stolen identities and fraudulent accounts.
- Scheme involved Syspac Financial Services, Inc., Commet Consultant, Inc., CMRA boxes, and forwarding mail to Canada to conceal true addresses.
- Adetiloye used stolen identities to open ~500 accounts and illicitly withdraw cash, with funds routed through multiple locations.
- District court held a three-day sentencing hearing and later entered restitution and forfeiture orders far below the government’s request, prompting objections.
- Court vacated the restitution and forfeiture orders and remanded to develop more detailed evidence of losses and proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution computation adequacy. | Government contends restitution must reflect actual losses to victims. | Adetiloye argues lack of itemized proof supports smaller award. | Court erred by not postponing to gather adequate itemization; restitution vacated and remanded. |
| Forfeiture amount accuracy. | Government seeks forfeiture equal to proceeds from the scheme. | Adetiloye argues the amount is overstated and not tied to actual proceeds. | District court clearly erred in tying forfeiture to the restitution amount; remand for proper gain-based calculation. |
| Acceptance of responsibility reduction. | N/A (Gov. brief) | Did not merit two-level reduction due to continued denial of key conduct. | District court did not abuse discretion in denying due to ongoing contested conduct. |
| Leadership enhancement legality. | Deemphasizes role as mere participant; argues no organizer/leader. | Evidence shows Adetiloye directed others and controlled aspects of the scheme. | Leaders/organizers finding supported; four-level enhancement not clearly erroneous. |
| Upward departure under § 2B1.1 cmt. n.19(A). | Departure warranted for non-monetary and risk-based losses not captured by base level. | Method of departing by adding levels; Rule 32(h) notice not required given PSR basis. | Departure affirmed; district court properly considered non-monetary risk and informed by PSR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural review of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (requires some explanation of sentencing factors but not every factual detail)
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court must show reasoned basis for sentence)
- United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2005) (context for Rita/§3553 analysis)
- United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2008) (shows need to reflect consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Lalley, 257 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2001) (clear error standard for acceptance of responsibility; deference to district court)
- United States v. Sayre, 400 F.3d 599 (8th Cir. 2005) (precedent for upward departures in certain contexts)
- United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 530 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2008) (framework for leadership enhancements under § 3B1.1)