United States v. Okechukwo Otuya
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12475
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Otuya was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft for a multi-year scheme defrauding Bank of America.
- Conspirators stole mail with credit card convenience checks, used college students’ accounts and runners to deposit/withdraw funds, and Otuya personally deposited some stolen checks.
- Trial ended with a verdict on May 16, 2011; sentencing applied a 12-level loss enhancement, a 4-level victims enhancement, and a 3-level manager/supervisor adjustment, yielding a total offense level of 26.
- Guidelines produced a 63–78 month range; the court imposed 72 months for the bank-fraud counts, plus 24 months consecutive for aggravated identity theft, totaling 96 months.
- The government sought to admit evidence from a backpack found at arrest (including account profiles, cards, a laptop, and phones) under Rule 404(b), arguing intrinsic relevance or permissible non-character purposes.
- Otuya challenges the backpack evidence and the aggravated identity theft conviction, and argues sentencing enhancements were misapplied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether backpack evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b). | Prosecutors: intrinsic to charged acts or admissible for non-character purposes (identity, MO). | Evidence is improper character evidence if extrinsic; not intrinsic or admissible for non-character purposes. | Admission upheld: backpack evidence was intrinsic to the acts and also admissible for non-character purposes. |
| Whether aggravated identity theft conviction survives the 'without lawful authority' standard. | Consent from a coconspirator could negate lack of lawful authority. | Consent cannot constitute lawful authority to commit the crime; statute unambiguous. | Conviction affirmed; use of another’s identification during a felony lacks lawful authority regardless of consent. |
| Whether the loss enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) was properly applied. | Loss attributable to Otuya exceeded $200,000 based on intended/forseen losses. | Challenge to loss calculation and attribution. | Reasonable estimate supported; district court did not clearly err in applying the loss enhancement. |
| Whether the count of fifty or more victims for § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) is proper. | Victims include those suffering any part of the actual loss; many held mail was stolen. | Account holders reimbursed do not suffer actual pecuniary harm. | Alternative basis satisfied: mail-theft victims count under the guidance; enhancement affirmed. |
| Whether the 3B1.1(b) manager/supervisor enhancement was correct. | Otuya exercised decision-making, recruited participants, and organized the scheme. | Challenge to status as manager/supervisor. | affirmed: district court properly found manager/supervisor role given planning, control, and recruitment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 1996) (intrinsic acts not subject to 404(b) limitations)
- United States v. Mancuso, 42 F.3d 836 (4th Cir. 1994) (knowledge element in bank fraud applies to link to scheme)
- United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008) (MO/MI evidence admissible for common scheme/operandi)
- United States v. Johnson ( Kennedy ), 32 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 1994) (modi operandi evidence and victim calculation guidance)
- United States v. Jinwright, 683 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2012) (may affirm on alternative proper conduct of record)
- United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602 (4th Cir. 2010) (definition of 'without lawful authority' for identity theft)