United States v. Olabimpe Olejiya
410 U.S. App. D.C. 194
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Olejiya and Akinadewo pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud (April–December 2007).
- Conspiracy involved opening fraudulent accounts in unwitting individuals’ names, funding with fraudulent checks and wire transfers, and withdrawing funds before detection.
- Calculations at sentencing included a 3- and 4-level aggravated-role enhancement and a 12-level loss increase for intended loss over $200,000; actual loss was about $91,000.
- Olejiya’s PSR: offense level 21, criminal history II; Olejiya argued against the role enhancement and loss-based increase.
- Akinadewo’s PSR: offense level 21 with a 4-level organization/leader enhancement and 12-level loss increase; he objected similarly.
- District court affirmed the enhancements and sentenced Olejiya to 35 months and Akinadewo to 46 months; both appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper application of aggravated-role enhancements | Olejiya and Akinadewo contend no valid control/leadership. | Olejiya and Akinadewo argue under- or misapplied role guidelines. | Yes, valid and deferentially applied. |
| Necessity of particularized findings for loss increase | Loss increase based on entire conspiracy requires individualized findings. | District court lacked specific findings tying loss to each defendant. | Court upheld premise; individualized findings not needed beyond scope. |
| Waiver/forfeiture of loss-amount challenges | Olejiya waived loss-amount challenge by concessions; Akinadewo forfeited. | Challenged the loss calculation despite concessions. | Olejiya waived; Akinadewo failed to show plain error. |
| Reasonableness of district court’s interpretation of foreseeability for loss | Loss attribution not properly limited to foreseeable acts. | Loss attributed to participants based on foreseeable acts in jointly undertaken crime. | Loss attributed appropriately under guidelines and foreseeability standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Saani, 650 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (deference to district court in applying Guidelines to facts)
- United States v. Quigley, 373 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (application of aggravated-role factors; hierarchical control concept)
- United States v. Yeh, 278 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (deference in Guidelines applications; control/authority concept)
- United States v. Graham, 162 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (factors for aggravated-role enhancements; non-dispositive nature)
- United States v. Brodie, 524 F.3d 259 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (discussion of hierarchical relationship in role enhancements)
- United States v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (control/authority considerations in role determinations)
- United States v. Laslie, 716 F.3d 612 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (waiver when defendant concedes enhancement; plain-error standard)
- United States v. Moore, 703 F.3d 562 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (district court may rely on concessions at sentencing)
- United States v. Williams, 358 F.3d 956 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (plain-error standard in sentencing context)
- United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (scope of conspiratorial agreement for loss calculations)