United States v. Adetokunbo Adepoju
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11748
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2010 a confidential informant (CI), working with DHS SA Marc Dipaola, interacted with Adepoju regarding a plan to open bank accounts in another person’s name ("T.A."), deposit forged checks, withdraw funds, and split proceeds.
- Adepoju provided the CI with IRS documents bearing T.A.’s name, DOB, and SSN and delivered two forged Wells Fargo cashier’s checks payable to T.A. and T.A. Trucking. The CI gave the checks to law enforcement rather than depositing them.
- Law enforcement arrested Adepoju at his home; they seized phones, a laptop, a thumb drive with images of blank SS cards and checks, multiple copies of a check number made out to different payees, and Adepoju’s fingerprint on an envelope used to deliver a $28,000 check.
- A jury convicted Adepoju of two counts of bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) and one count of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A). The district court sentenced him to 70 months total (46 months for bank fraud, plus the 24-month mandatory consecutive sentence for identity theft).
- At sentencing the court applied a two-level Guidelines enhancement for “sophisticated means” under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C); Adepoju appealed convictions, the enhancement, and a due-process claim concerning the mandatory identity-theft sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for bank fraud convictions (18 U.S.C. § 1344) | Gov’t: evidence of scheme, forged checks, plan to deposit/withdraw, and federally insured bank support convictions | Adepoju: no evidence he opened an account or presented checks to a bank; contested intent | Affirmed — viewing evidence in gov’t favor, substantial evidence supported attempted scheme and intent under § 1344(1) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) | Gov’t: Adepoju knowingly used T.A.’s name, SSN and other identifiers during the bank-fraud scheme | Adepoju: lacked proof he knew T.A. was a real person | Affirmed — CI testified Adepoju admitted T.A. was a real person; knowledge requirement satisfied |
| Sophisticated-means sentencing enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)) | Gov’t: use of stolen identity and forged checks, plus plan, warrant enhancement | Adepoju: mere possession/use of fraudulent materials is not enough; government must prove extra complexity | Vacated enhancement — court applied clear-error review and found no evidence of especially complex or intricate conduct beyond ordinary fraud; district court improperly shifted burden to defendant |
| Due process / Alleyne challenge to mandatory 2-year identity-theft sentence | Adepoju: alleged mandatory-minimum facts not submitted to jury as required by Alleyne | Gov’t: the identity-theft statute imposes a single consecutive 2‑year term upon conviction; no additional factfinding required | Affirmed — jury’s guilty verdict supports the statutory consecutive 2-year sentence; Alleyne does not require extra jury findings here |
Key Cases Cited
- Loughrin v. United States, 710 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir.) (distinguishes §1344(1) and §1344(2) focus; risk-of-loss not required for §1344(1))
- Brandon v. United States, 298 F.3d 307 (4th Cir.) (elements of §1344(1) and application to attempted schemes)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (knowledge that the identification belonged to another person is required for §1028A)
- Jinwright v. United States, 683 F.3d 471 (4th Cir.) (sophisticated-means enhancement requires conduct beyond ordinary fraud)
- Llamas v. United States, 599 F.3d 381 (4th Cir.) (vacating enhancement where court failed to explain factual basis)
- Archuleta v. United States, 231 F.3d 682 (10th Cir.) (use of false name and checks may show only the minimum conduct for §1344)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums must be found by a jury)