United States v. Adetokunbo Adejumo
772 F.3d 513
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Large multi-agency investigation (Operation Starburst) of bank fraud/identity-theft led to a multi-defendant indictment; Okeayainneh, Adeniran, and Adejumo were tried or pleaded guilty on various counts.
- Scheme used stolen identities and counterfeit IDs to (1) open fraudulent bank accounts to deposit/cash counterfeit or stolen checks and (2) use stolen credit cards for gift-card purchases and cash advances; investigators found a storage locker leased by Okeayainneh containing checks (face value > $18M), ~500 credit cards, ID materials for ~8,700 people, and card-manufacturing equipment.
- Adeniran was arrested after using a stolen credit card to buy gift cards; police found multiple victims’ identifying information on him and recorded jail calls in which he discussed the fraud and destruction of evidence.
- Okeayainneh was arrested at his storage locker; he gave a proffer statement but was later tried, and the government used the proffer statements at trial after concluding he had lied in the proffer.
- At trial Okeayainneh was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and numerous substantive counts; Adeniran was convicted on the conspiracy count and several substantive counts; Adejumo pleaded guilty and was sentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act continuance | Govt/district court: ends-of-justice exclusion valid because case complex | Okeayainneh/Adeniran: court failed to make contemporaneous §3161(h)(7) findings when granting continuance | Affirmed — later written findings (issued before ruling on dismissal motions) sufficed under precedent (no improper factors alleged) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for single conspiracy (Adeniran) / conspiracy membership (Okeayainneh) | Adeniran: evidence showed separate conspiracies (card scheme vs account/check scheme); Okeayainneh: government failed to prove he knowingly joined the larger conspiracy | Govt: single conspiracy with common objective (bank fraud by multiple means); ties among participants supported membership | Affirmed as to both: jury reasonably found single conspiracy and that each defendant knowingly joined general scheme |
| Admission of government’s chart & proffer statements (Okeayainneh) | Okeayainneh: Exhibit 222 (photo/org chart labeling roles) was prejudicial and drew legal conclusions; proffer statements inadmissible because he did not knowingly waive Miranda/Fifth Amendment | Govt: chart used simply to ID faces; proffer waiver: written proffer agreement permitted use if defendant lied and he breached it | Chart: admission was abuse of discretion but harmless given overwhelming evidence; Proffer: admission proper — he signed agreement and court found a breach, so statements admissible |
| Sentencing enhancements and relevant-conduct attributions (Okeayainneh, Adeniran, Adejumo) | Defendants: challenges to loss calculation, victim counts, role-in-offense enhancements, obstruction enhancement, sophistications, and relevant-conduct attributions (Adeniran argues his relevant conduct limited to his brief credit-card activity) | Govt: enhancements supported by locker contents, witness testimony, telephone records, proffer lies, and managerial acts; full intended loss and victim counts attributable to conspiracy | Mixed: court affirmed many enhancements for Okeayainneh (loss >$50M, >250 victims, role); vacated obstruction enhancement for Okeayainneh (insufficient evidence it significantly impeded investigation). For Adeniran, reversed and remanded on loss/victim and role attributions — district court must make individualized foreseeability findings. Adejumo: court affirmed obstruction, role enhancement, denial of acceptance reduction, loss stipulation binding, and criminal-history ruling (no plain error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court) (timing and recordation requirements for SPEEDY TRIAL Act ends-of-justice findings)
- United States v. Villarreal, 707 F.3d 942 (8th Cir.) (dismissal requirement if non-excludable days exceed 70)
- United States v. Ramon‑Rodriguez, 492 F.3d 930 (8th Cir.) (standard for presenting facts in light most favorable to verdict)
- United States v. Spires, 628 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir.) (admissibility and harmlessness of summary evidence/charts)
- United States v. Morris, 723 F.3d 934 (8th Cir.) (elements of conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Hyles, 521 F.3d 946 (8th Cir.) (contract/principles governing proffer/immunity agreements)
- United States v. Parish, 565 F.3d 528 (8th Cir.) (district court deference in estimating loss under Guidelines)
- United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961 (8th Cir.) (criteria for acceptance-of-responsibility when obstruction is present)