United States v. Adesina, 2:20-cr-00062

Background

Petitioner Osazee Nathaniel Oboh, a Nigerian national who became a lawful permanent resident in 2020, pleaded guilty to Count One (18 U.S.C. § 371) — a conspiracy with objects of bank fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft.
The plea agreement and factual basis repeatedly described fraudulent conduct; petitioner acknowledged the plea could have immigration consequences. Court ordered $40,000 restitution and a custodial sentence (later reduced); petitioner is now in ICE custody and facing deportation proceedings.
Oboh filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance by defense counsel (Shelton, Shipley, Collins), principally for failing to advise that deportation was a mandatory consequence of the plea. He also alleged failures regarding loss-amount objections, plea negotiation, promises of probation, and failing to inform the sentencing court of deportation risk.
The Court held an evidentiary hearing where counsel uniformly testified they warned deportation was possible but did not advise it was mandatory; Collins could not recall researching mandatory deportation. Oboh testified inconsistently with his plea colloquy statements.
Applying Strickland/Padilla and the categorical approach, the Court concluded a conspiracy to commit bank fraud under § 371 categorically involves fraud (a crime of moral turpitude) and that reasonably competent counsel should have identified that mandatory deportation was likely — so counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient.
The Court denied § 2255 relief because Oboh could not show Strickland prejudice: the plea colloquy and Oboh’s sworn statements, lack of credible evidence of affirmative misadvice, and other factors rebut a showing that he would have rejected the plea or obtained a non-deportable deal. The Court granted a certificate of appealability limited to the prejudice question.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that deportation was a mandatory consequence of pleading to § 371 conspiracy (bank fraud)	Counsel failed to inform Oboh that his § 371 conviction (conspiracy to commit bank fraud) was a crime of moral turpitude and would mandate deportation	Counsel warned deportation was a possible collateral consequence; statute and immigration consequences are complex; plea colloquy also warned of deportation	Court: Counsel deficient under Padilla (should have determined deportation was mandatory) but no prejudice shown because plea colloquy and Oboh’s sworn acknowledgments cured any harm (no evidence of affirmative misadvice)
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to/contest the loss amount (>$10,000) under USSG §2B1.1, which could create an aggravated-felony deportation ground	Counsel did not investigate or contest loss; a loss below $10,000 could have avoided aggravated-felony deportation	No viable legal/factual basis identified to limit loss below $10,000; counsel negotiated a substantially lower agreed range and restitution	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; challenge would have been meritless/speculative and immigration court not bound by sentencing loss finding
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to secure a more favorable (non-deportable) plea like a co-defendant received	Counsel failed to negotiate a plea that avoided deportation (pointing to co-defendant Imasuen’s different deal)	Defers to prosecution’s charging/offer decisions; plea offer was final/take-it-or-leave-it for Oboh; defendants not identically situated	Court: No relief — no persuasive contemporaneous evidence Oboh could have obtained a different deal; plea colloquy and final-offer evidence defeat prejudice claim
Whether counsel promised probation and failed to inform the court of deportation risk at sentencing	Counsel guaranteed probation so Oboh relied and entered plea; counsel failed to request variance based on deportation risk	No credible proof of a promise; plea colloquy shows Oboh understood no promise; counsel did move for variance and court knew deportation risk	Court: Claim rejected — counsel credibility favored, plea colloquy cured any alleged promise, and court was aware of deportation risk at sentencing

Key Cases Cited

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2009) (attorney must advise noncitizen client about deportation consequences when statute makes them clear)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (Strickland standard applied in guilty‑plea context)
Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017) (defense counsel’s affirmative misadvice that contradicted plea‑colloquy warnings can establish prejudice)
Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951) (fraud offenses have been regarded as involving moral turpitude)
Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) (apply categorical approach to determine immigration consequences based on statutory elements)
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) (modified categorical approach and determining elements vs. means)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (distinguishing categorical and modified categorical approaches)
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (loss amount for aggravated‑felony purposes must be tied to counts of conviction)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (importance of sworn plea‑colloquy statements and standards for evidentiary hearings)
Yeremin v. Holder, 738 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2013) (applying categorical approach to crimes involving moral turpitude)
United States v. Tragas, 727 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2013) (§ 371 conspiracy may be charged as multi‑object conspiracy and object offense is an element)
United States v. Everett, 270 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2001) (elements of bank fraud include intent to defraud)