United States v. Toochukwu Okorie
697 F. App'x 116
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Okorie pleaded guilty in 2009 to multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering and was sentenced in 2011 to 54 months’ imprisonment, three years’ supervised release, a $600 special assessment, and approximately $1.7 million in restitution.
- He did not appeal his conviction or file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.
- Okorie’s supervised release ended in May 2016; in early 2017 he filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking vacation of the restitution order and reimbursement for amounts paid.
- He argued restitution terminated at the end of supervised release and that the restitution order was invalid because it did not identify victims or set a payment schedule.
- The Government opposed; the district court denied coram nobis relief, explaining restitution runs for 20 years after release under 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b),(f) and that Okorie had not shown a timely or valid basis to modify the restitution order.
- Okorie appealed; the Third Circuit applied de novo review of legal conclusions and affirmed summarily, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting coram nobis and no sound reason for failing to raise earlier challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis relief is warranted to vacate restitution | Restitution should be vacated because obligation ended with supervised release and order was invalid for failing to identify victims or set payment schedule | Restitution remains enforceable; coram nobis inappropriate because challenges were untimely and no exceptional circumstances exist | Denied: coram nobis not appropriate; no exceptional circumstances and no sound reason for earlier delay |
| Whether restitution expired at end of supervised release | Okorie: restitution ended with supervised release completion (May 2016) | Government/District Ct.: statutory 20-year collection period controls, not supervised-release end | Denied: restitution continues under 18 U.S.C. § 3613 for 20 years after release |
| Whether failure to identify victims or set payment schedule renders order invalid at this stage | Okorie: lack of specificity voids restitution order | Government/District Ct.: claim was untimely; petitioner failed to show a valid basis for relief now | Denied: challenge time-barred and not a basis for coram nobis relief |
| Whether petitioner showed a "sound reason" for failing to seek earlier relief | Okorie: did not show an adequate excuse | Government: no sound reason; coram nobis standard strict | Denied: petitioner failed to meet stricter coram nobis "sound reason" requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendoza v. United States, 690 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2012) (coram nobis standards and review)
- Obado v. New Jersey, 328 F.3d 716 (3d Cir. 2003) (coram nobis is reserved for exceptional circumstances)
- Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996) (remark that coram nobis is rarely necessary)
- Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2010) (limits of appellate jurisdiction to specified judgment)