United States v. Chibuko, 744 F.3d 259

Background

Chibuko, a Nigerian national, was convicted after a May 2011 trial in the District of Connecticut on nine counts, including three aggravated identity theft counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A arising from impersonating the same individual.
The district court sentenced him to an effective term of 168 months, with three consecutive 24‑month terms for the § 1028A offenses.
The court did not reference Guidelines § 5G1.2 or Application Note 2(B) or discuss groupability when deciding consecutiveness versus concurrency for the § 1028A counts.
Chibuko used Buckley’s birth certificate and SSN to obtain Buckley’s passport, employment, driver’s licenses, mortgages, bank accounts, and to vote in 2008, making Buckley the victim of multiple frauds.
Two § 1028A offenses (counts four and nine) were based on separate job-application frauds involving impersonation of the same person; count six involved voter-registration fraud under Buckley’s name.
The PSR originally included enhancements; a later Second Addendum removed one enhancement and added others; the district court did not explicitly address groupability or § 5G1.2 in connection with counts four and nine, prompting remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by not considering Guidelines § 5G1.2 and Application Note 2(B) in deciding consecutive versus concurrent sentences for § 1028A counts.	Chibuko argues the court failed to consider groupability and relevant guidelines.	The government contends the court need not detail every guideline and could rely on other factors.	Remanded for further sentencing proceedings to consider § 5G1.2 and groupability.
Whether the § 1028A counts with underlying employment fraud were properly grouped or should have run concurrently.	Chibuko contends counts three and eight should have been grouped and run concurrently with counts four and nine.	The government maintains proper consideration of groupability was required and supported the court’s approach.	Remanded for supplementation of the record with findings on groupability for counts four and nine.
Whether the sentence for count six (voter fraud) should run concurrently with or consecutively to the other § 1028A sentences.	Chibuko asserts groupability would mandate a different sentencing arrangement.	The voter-fraud offense was not groupable with the employment-related offenses; concurrent versus consecutive was within court’s discretion.	No plain error; count six may be treated as consecutive; upheld absent plain error.
Whether the district court properly addressed objections related to the PSR and Second Addendum, and whether any plain error occurred there.	Chibuko asserts the Second Addendum corrections were ignored and that an obstruction-adjustment finding was improperly analyzed.	The court reviewed the final PSR and considered the Second Addendum; objections were not plainly erroneous.	No plain error; the court adequately considered the Second Addendum and related adjustments.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (mandates balancing sentencing factors; not always exhaustive discussion required)
United States v. Dooley, 688 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 2012) (groupability essential on facts for plain-error review)
United States v. Dvorak, 617 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (groupability not always required to be discussed explicitly)
United States v. Corbin, 474 F. App’x 66 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirmed consecutive sentences based on multiple victims; grouping context relevant)
United States v. Bradshaw, 445 F. App’x 176 (11th Cir. 2011) (grouping considerations valid in § 1028A sentencing)