United States v. Adetokunbo Adejumo, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1809

Adejumo pled guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft; plea left restitution amount to be determined by the district court and preserved his right to contest loss amount.
At sentencing (Aug 15, 2012) the court did not set restitution; no restitution information was in the presentence report.
One year later (Aug 15, 2013) the government moved in district court to amend the judgment to add $1,106,931 in restitution, attaching a one‑page list of four banks and amounts; notice was sent only to trial counsel of record (who had withdrawn) and not to newly appointed appellate counsel.
The district court entered the amended judgment ordering $1.1 million restitution; Adejumo learned of the order two months later from his prison counselor and then sought to reopen/reconsider.
The district court denied the reopening motion as untimely under Rule 35(a) and found no due‑process/statutory violation; the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding notice and § 3664 procedures were deficient and remanding for a restitution hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Adejumo received constitutionally adequate notice before entry of restitution	Notice was not reasonably calculated given counsel change, counsel’s failure to forward ECF, and one‑year delay	Government contended notice to counsel of record was sufficient	Court held notice was not reasonable under the circumstances and due‑process violated
Whether the district court complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3664 when ordering restitution	Restitution entry lacked the required probation report, accounting of victim losses, and an evidentiary basis	Government relied on one‑page exhibit as sufficient and argued deadlines do not bar relief	Court held § 3664 requirements were not met; one‑page list and absent PSR/hearing insufficient
Whether the timing (delay/90‑day rule) barred restitution	Adejumo argued delay violated § 3664(d)(5) and due process	Government noted Dolan allows late restitution if requirements satisfied and relied on lack of automatic bar	Court noted Dolan but found government’s delay and failure to produce required information rendered the restitution order invalid without proper notice/hearing

Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (missing 90‑day deadline for mandatory restitution does not automatically bar a restitution order)
United States v. Cheal, 389 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (defendant’s due‑process claim over late restitution where notice went to withdrawn counsel; lack of specific challenge undermined relief)
United States v. Haileselassie, 668 F.3d 1033 (8th Cir. 2012) (invoices or bare lists identifying loss without explanation are insufficient to establish restitution amount)
United States v. Adetiloye, 716 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2013) (restitution amounts must be established by evidence such as sworn victim statements or witness testimony)