United States v. Kofi Agyekum
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1220
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kofi Agyekum operated A+ Care Pharmacy (his wife Patricia was the licensed pharmacist) and was investigated for supplying oxycodone to a drug-distribution conspiracy led by Anthony Ferguson. Agents used a confidential informant and recorded sales, cash payments, altered records, and destruction of paperwork.
- From March–August 2014 Agyekum made numerous cash deposits structured under $10,000 across multiple banks, totaling $469,930 in the charged period and over $2.3 million in assets later seized.
- A grand jury indicted Agyekum on drug, distribution, money-laundering, and 11 structuring counts; he pleaded guilty under a written plea agreement to two structuring counts and agreed to forfeiture of assets.
- At sentencing the presentence report applied enhancements: +2 for leadership role (U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c)) and +2 for abuse of a position of trust (U.S.S.G. §3B1.3), based on his role in the drug conspiracy as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3; guideline range = 57–71 months, sentence = 64 months.
- On appeal Agyekum challenged (1) use of his drug-conspiracy conduct as “relevant conduct” to support the two enhancements for sentencing on the structuring convictions and (2) adequacy of the district court’s admonitions regarding waiver of forfeiture rights in the plea colloquy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether drug-conspiracy activity is “relevant conduct” to structuring convictions under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3 | Agyekum: structuring convictions were discrete bank-customer acts; unrelated drug activity should not be imputed as relevant conduct | Government: structuring deposited proceeds of drug activity to conceal source; drug conspiracy materially linked temporally and qualitatively to structuring | Court: Affirmed — ongoing drug-distribution activity produced the illicit cash and was temporally and qualitatively linked, thus relevant conduct under §1B1.3(a)(1)(A) |
| Whether leadership-role enhancement (§3B1.1(c)) was supported by relevant conduct | Agyekum: structuring was individual conduct; he did not supervise others in making deposits | Government: his management of the pharmacy and direction of illegal dispensing/sales showed decisionmaking and control | Court: Affirmed — factual findings (running the pharmacy, setting policies, handling money) support manager/supervisor role |
| Whether abuse-of-trust enhancement (§3B1.3) was supported | Agyekum: deposits were his/ his wife’s money; no victim trust relationship to abuse for enhancement | Government: as pharmacy intern/acting CEO he abused professional and managerial discretion (distributor, Board of Pharmacy, employees) to facilitate/conceal crimes | Court: Affirmed — district court reasonably found he abused professional/managerial discretion (ordering, altering reports, concealing inventory and cash) |
| Whether plea/forfeiture waiver was knowingly and intelligently made | Agyekum: district court failed to ensure he understood procedural protections he waived regarding forfeiture | Government: plea colloquy and written agreement show he understood; no plain-error affecting substantial rights | Court: Affirmed — plea colloquy plus agreement show he knowingly accepted forfeiture terms; no plain error or prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McVey, 752 F.3d 606 (4th Cir. 2014) (relevant-conduct sentencing principle)
- United States v. Brack, 651 F.3d 388 (4th Cir. 2011) (purpose of §3B1.3 enhancement)
- United States v. Caplinger, 339 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2003) (trust relationship requirement for §3B1.3)
- United States v. Moore, 29 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 1994) (cannot base enhancement on co-conspirator’s abuse of trust)
- United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 2010) (factors for assessing abuse of trust)
- United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2005) (fiduciary-like function needed for trust relationship)
- United States v. Wernick, 691 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (temporal overlap alone insufficient for §1B1.3; requires connection)
- United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 1999) (ordinary commercial relationships ordinarily insufficient for abuse-of-trust enhancement)
- United States v. Koehn, 74 F.3d 199 (10th Cir. 1996) (abuse of trust definition and application)