United States v. Adeyinka, 410 F. App'x 986

Adeyinka Adeyinka was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).
The district court calculated an advisory guidelines range of 78 to 97 months and sentenced Adeyinka to 97 months.
Adeyinka’s counsel filed an Anders brief seeking to withdraw; Adeyinka opposed the withdrawal.
The Seventh Circuit limited its review to issues raised in the counsel’s brief and Adeyinka’s response.
Key facts include a recorded meeting with an informant and codefendant Ayoola, Adeyinka delivering cocaine pellets to the informant, and later claiming he was delivering lemons and salt for a loan.
Obstruction of justice enhancement (2 levels) was applied because Adeyinka fled to Canada and remained a fugitive for three years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute	Adeyinka’s involvement shown by delivery of cocaine pellets and coordination with Ayoola.	No legitimate dispute that evidence is insufficient to prove intent or agreement.	Frivolous; evidence supported both counts.
Admissibility of the agent's testimony on quantity/purity to prove intent to distribute	Expert testimony appropriately linked quantity/purity to distribution intent.	Challenged as improper or unnecessary expert commentary.	Frivolous; admissible as proper context for intent.
Admission of recordings of informant conversations and related statements	Statements were nonhearsay admissions or nonhearsay background material	Opposed admission as prejudicial or improper hearsay.	Frivolous; properly admitted or nonhearsay as described.
Use of the ostrich instruction in the jury charge	Instruction correctly states permissible inference standards; not error.	Instruction could invite conviction for negligent conduct.	Frivolous; court has approvingly used similar instructions.
Obstruction of justice adjustment and extradition-treaty challenge	2-level uplift appropriate due to fleeing conduct; extradition treaty does not bar consideration of relevant conduct.	Increase violates treaty; punishment limited to offenses for which extradited.	Frivolous; adjustment allowed and within circuit precedent.

Starks v. United States, 309 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 2002) (statutory elements of possession with intent to distribute)
Medina v. United States, 430 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2005) (conspiracy elements and knowledge requirement)
Huddleston v. United States, 593 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2010) (expert testimony admissibility and relevance for intent)
Winbush v. United States, 580 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2009) (drug-trafficking evidence and intent to distribute)
Morris v. United States, 576 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2009) (agent testimony on drug distribution mechanics)
James v. United States, 487 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2007) (background to recorded statements; nonhearsay rationale)
Van Sach v. United States, 458 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2006) (admission of jointly conducted conversations)
Tolliver v. United States, 454 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2006) (conspiracy evidence and admissibility of recordings)
Garcia v. United States, 580 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2009) (ostrich instruction upheld)
Leahy v. United States, 464 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2006) (pattern jury instructions and knowledge standard)
Jaffe v. United States, 387 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2004) (scope of knowledge in criminal conduct)
Gilleylen v. United States, 81 F.3d 70 (7th Cir. 1996) (obstruction-of-justice adjustments and guidelines)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasonable-doubt standard and appellate review of sentencing)
Pape v. United States, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness review within guidelines)