United States v. Alake Ilegbameh, 669 F. App'x 873

Defendant Alake Terry Ilegbameh was convicted on six counts for arranging sham marriages to evade immigration laws, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a).
The convictions stemmed from schemes pairing Nigerian nationals with U.S. citizens and preparing immigration documents containing material false statements.
At trial, Ilegbameh contested counsel performance and sought (or appeared to seek) substitution of counsel and a continuance to locate additional Nigerian spouses to testify.
The government introduced evidence of other sham marriages and related conduct (including prostitution propositions) to prove intent and knowledge and to rebut defenses implicating co-conspirators.
At sentencing, the court applied U.S.S.G. § 2L2.1 rather than § 2L2.2, based on the jury’s finding that the conspiracy involved both American and Nigerian spouses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying substitution of counsel	Ilegbameh argued counsel conflict warranted new counsel	Counsel conflict was tactical (witnesses/subpoenas); no total breakdown of communication	No error; defendant did not show conflict so severe as to prevent adequate defense; request unclear and based on trial tactics
Whether denial of a continuance near trial was erroneous	Ilegbameh argued additional time would locate Nigerian spouses to testify and aid defense	Court observed improbability of finding such witnesses in short time and uncertain utility	No error; defendant failed to show continuance likely would have produced helpful witnesses or avoided prejudice
Whether admission of other "bad acts" evidence was improper	Ilegbameh argued evidence of other sham marriages and propositions was prejudicial	Government argued such acts proved intent/knowledge and were intertwined with key testimony; some evidence elicited by defense	No error; evidence admissible for intent/knowledge and rebuttal; any possible error would be harmless given strength of proof
Whether sentencing guideline § 2L2.1 was incorrectly applied instead of § 2L2.2	Ilegbameh contended different guideline should apply	Government and court relied on jury finding that conspiracy involved both American and Nigerian spouses, making § 2L2.1 appropriate	No error; § 2L2.1 properly applied because conviction involved conspiratorial conduct with both spouse types

United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for substitution of counsel based on breakdown in communication)
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1995) (noting overruling on other grounds relevant to Torres-Rodriguez)
United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (trial tactic disputes generally do not justify substitution of counsel)
United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1985) (factors for reviewing denial of continuance)