United States v. Adetokunbo Adejumo
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2727
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Adejumo pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting bank fraud and aggravated identity theft; plea agreement reserved restitution amount for the court.
- At initial sentencing (Aug 2012) the court ordered restitution but did not state an amount; the government later moved (Aug 2013) for $1.1M without Adejumo receiving notice.
- This court reversed that award in 2015 for procedural and evidentiary defects and remanded for a restitution hearing. See United States v. Adejumo.
- After an October 2015 hearing the district court ordered restitution to four banks totaling $495,803.86; Adejumo appealed challenging jurisdiction/timing and the sufficiency of loss evidence.
- The government presented bank records of initial losses and testimony from an IRS agent (Shoup) who relayed bank-official loss estimates but no bank officials testified or provided sworn statements.
- The Eighth Circuit vacated the restitution order, finding the government failed to prove the banks’ ultimate losses and declining to remand for another hearing in the interest of finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/timing under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) | Gov: Court retained power to set restitution after sentencing and may set final date if losses were unascertainable. | Adejumo: Government waited too long (motion >1 year after sentencing); court lacked jurisdiction. | Court: Delay did not strip court of power; Dolan controls — late final determination still permitted if court indicated intent to order restitution. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for ultimate victim losses | Gov: Bank records and agent testimony show losses attributable to Adejumo totaling ~$495,804. | Adejumo: Evidence shows only initial losses; ultimate losses unproven; agent’s testimony was hearsay and unreliable. | Court: Government failed to prove ultimate losses by preponderance; documentary evidence showed initial takings but not final bank losses; agent’s secondhand, inconsistent testimony insufficient. |
| Remedy (vacate vs remand) | Gov: Remand for additional proceedings to allow proof of ultimate losses. | Adejumo: Favor vacatur given repeated delay and insufficient prior proofs. | Court: Vacated restitution and declined remand for another hearing due to government’s repeated failures and interest of finality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (court retains power to order restitution despite missing §3664 deadline)
- United States v. Zaic, 744 F.3d 1040 (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Adetiloye, 716 F.3d 1030 (government burden to prove restitution by preponderance; permissible evidence at sentencing)
- United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748 (restitution limited to provable actual loss)
- United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539 (restitution cannot produce windfalls for victims)
- United States v. Alexander, 679 F.3d 721 (district court may reasonably estimate loss when precise amount is difficult)
- United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010 (same; estimating losses at sentencing)
- United States v. Fleck, 413 F.3d 883 (sentencing information must have sufficient indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Jones, 195 F.3d 379 (reliability standards for sentencing proof)
- United States v. Bertucci, 794 F.3d 925 (declining remand in interest of finality)
- United States v. Adejumo, 777 F.3d 1017 (prior reversal and remand for restitution hearing)