Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cr-00560/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cr-00560-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roland Adams
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROLAND ADAMS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

CR. NO. S-02-0257 EJG 

CR. NO. S-02-0560 EJG

ORDER AFTER REMAND;

ORDER AFTER STATUS CONFERENCE

This matter was before the court on May 16, 2007 for a

hearing in Cr. No. S-02-0257 following a limited remand from the

Ninth Circuit, and for a status conference in Cr. No. S-02-0257

and Cr. No. S-02-0560 to address several motions filed by

defendant. Assistant U.S. Attorney Camil Skipper appeared on

behalf of the United States. Michael Bigelow appeared as

appointed counsel on behalf of defendant in connection with the

remanded issue in Cr. No. S-02-0257. Defendant appeared in pro

per in all other respects. Bruce Locke appeared on behalf of

third party claimant Bodisere Okonma. 

///

///

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 1 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The plea agreement contained numerous other terms; however, only those relevant to

1

the matters presently before the court are discussed in this order. 

2

BACKGROUND

Defendant was indicted on June 20, 2002 on several counts of

wire fraud and money laundering and two counts of criminal

forfeiture (hereafter referred to as the “fraud case”, Cr. No. S02-0257), and on December 19, 2002 on one count of unlawful

procurement of naturalization and one count of making a false

statement (hereafter referred to as the “immigration case”, Cr.

No. S-02-0560). The cases were ordered related, but were not

consolidated. 

On August 18, 2003, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant

pled guilty in Cr. No. 02-0257 to one count of conspiracy to

commit wire fraud (Count One) and one count of conspiracy to

launder money (Count Seven), and agreed to waive a jury trial on

the forfeiture counts (Counts Nine and Ten). In exchange, the

United States agreed to recommend dismissal of Counts Two through

Six, and Count Eight. On September 8, 2003, defendant 1

stipulated to the entry of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture in

which he agreed to forfeit to the United States $87,707.39 in

currency, a laptop computer, and three internet domain names, all

of which items were contained in the two criminal forfeiture

counts. 

On September 22, 2003, having waived a jury, defendant went

to hearing before the court on the sole remaining item contained

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 A transcript of the court’s ruling is filed as docket entry 60 in Cr. No. S-02-0257. 2

3

in the forfeiture counts, real property located at 9501 Misty

River Way in Elk Grove, California (hereafter referred to as the

“Misty River Way property”). The government maintained that the

Misty River Way property was forfeitable because it had been

purchased during the time period of the indictment with proceeds

from defendant’s fraud. 

At the hearing, testimony and exhibits were offered in

evidence. On September 29, 2003, the court issued its oral

decision, finding the real property forfeitable because the

majority of the $134,398 down payment came from proceeds directly

traceable to defendant’s fraud. Specifically, the court found 2

that $87,585 was received by defendant from Nigerian wire

transfers in April 2002, one month prior to the purchase of the

Misty River Way property. In addition, the court found an

additional $32,000 used for the down payment directly traceable

to defendant’s fraud since it represented equity from the sale of

a prior residence which had been purchased in 1999, during a

period of time in which the court found defendant engaged in

fraudulent activity. Alternatively, the court identified an

additional $500,000 acquired by defendant during 1999-2001 as

tainted proceeds, and determined that the Misty River Way

property was forfeitable as a substitute asset for these funds. 

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 3 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The appeal was denied in all other respects. Specifically, the court noted, “Adams 3

raises a host of other challenges to his convictions and sentence. None has merit. Adams

convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED, except that we VACATE the district court’s forfeiture

order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.” United States v.

Adams, 189 Fed. Appx. 600 (9 Cir. 2006). th

4

In December of 2003, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty

pleas to the fraud and money laundering counts, which motion was

denied after an evidentiary hearing on March 19, 2004. On April

12, 2004, defendant proceeded to jury trial on the immigration

case and was convicted on both counts. The fraud and immigration

cases were consolidated for sentencing and defendant was

sentenced in both cases on March 11, 2005 to an aggregate term of

97 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. In

addition, restitution in the amount of $1.2 million was imposed

in the fraud case. Despite having waived appeal and collateral

attack in the fraud case as part of his plea agreement, defendant

appealed the convictions and sentence in both cases.

In a memorandum opinion filed June 29, 2006, the Ninth

Circuit affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentence in full,

with one exception. The appellate court remanded the forfeiture

order, finding that the district court erroneously considered as

tainted proceeds funds acquired outside the time period of the

indictment in its calculation of fraud proceeds.3

Meanwhile, prior to resolution of the appeal, defendant

began to file numerous post-conviction motions in both cases,

which, eventually, the court held in abeyance pending first,

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 4 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 5

resolution of the appeal, and second, resolution of the issue

remanded by the appellate court. Thereafter, at defendant’s

request, the court appointed counsel to represent him on the

remanded issue finding that it remained a critical part of the

criminal proceedings at which he was entitled to counsel.

On May 16, 2007, the hearing after remand was held. After

considering the parties’ written and oral arguments and the

record in this matter, and for the reasons stated in the court’s

oral analysis in open court and on the record, the court enters

the following order.

DISCUSSION

“A defendant convicted of money laundering shall ‘forfeit to

the United States any property, real or personal, involved in

such offense, or any property traceable to such property.’”

United States v. Adams, 189 Fed. Appx. 600 (9 Cir. 2006). The th

burden is on the government to prove by a preponderance that the

property is subject to forfeiture. Id. At the forfeiture

hearing, the court must determine if the government has

established the requisite nexus between the property and the

offense. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1). The determination may

be based on evidence already in the record, including any written

plea agreement, and on evidence presented at the hearing. Id.

Of the $134,398 down payment on the Misty River Way

property, the Ninth Circuit affirmed $87,585 (two Nigerian wire

transfers occurring during the time period of the indictment) as

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 5 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 6

directly traceable to the fraud. To account for the remaining

portion the government points to evidence in the record,

specifically documents contained in exhibits 10 through 18, of

monies acquired by defendant during the period of the indictment

which total $112,085.15, exclusive of the Nigerian wire

transfers. At the time of the initial hearing in September of

2003, defendant offered no explanation for these funds, nor does

he now. Thus, if the court finds a requisite nexus between these

funds and the fraud by a preponderance of the evidence it can

enter an order forfeiting the Misty River Way property.

Exhibits 10 through 18 represent wire transfers and money

orders from Canada and South Africa which were deposited into

defendant’s Sacramento bank account between the dates of April

2001 and May 30, 2002, within the time period of the indictment. 

The admissibility of these exhibits was agreed to by counsel at

the time of the initial forfeiture hearing in September 2003. 

In preparation for the hearing after remand, the court

examined each individual document of each of these exhibits,

specifically reviewing each document identification number,

amount, date, and country of origin. Based on this examination,

the court is satisfied that these exhibits represent a total of

$112,085.15 in currency received by the defendant from Canadian

and South African sources during the dates of the indictment. 

At the initial forfeiture hearing in September of 2003,

Special Agent Korbes testified that numerous calls, letters and

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 6 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 7

travel to South Africa by defendant tied him to that country. In

addition, Agent Korbes testified that several victims of the

defendant’s scheme sent money to Toronto Canada. No evidence

refuting these allegations was presented during the hearing. 

Moreover, in the factual basis for the plea to Counts One and

Seven, Exhibit A to the Plea Agreement, defendant admitted: 1)

that he had co-conspirators in Nigeria, South Africa and Canada;

2) that victims of the scheme were required to send advance fees

to individuals in Canada and South Africa; and 3) that a portion

of these funds were later forwarded to defendant in Sacramento by

wire transfer and money order. 

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the court finds

that the money documented by exhibits 10 through 18 represents

proceeds from defendant’s fraudulent schemes. The court also

finds, based on its review of exhibits and testimony at the

initial hearing concerning monetary transactions surrounding the

purchase of the Misty River Way property in May of 2002, a nexus

sufficient to link the proceeds to the monies used to purchase

the property. 

O R D E R

1. The court finds a total of $199,670.15 in proceeds

directly traceable to defendant’s fraud during the relevant time

period charged in the indictment: a) $87,585 from Nigerian wire

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 7 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 This figure was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in its memorandum opinion, filed June 4

29, 2006. 

8

transfers; and b) $112,085.15 from South African and Canadian 4

wire transfers and money orders. Subtracting from that total

$87,707.39, the amount of currency the defendant previously

agreed was fraud proceeds (pursuant to the stipulation entered in

September 2003), leaves a balance of $111,962.76 to be forfeited.

2. The U.S. Attorney shall prepare an order of forfeiture

in the amount of $111,962.76.

3. The court will enter an amended judgment on Counts One,

Seven, Nine and Ten of Cr. No. S-02-0257.

4. Mr. Bigelow is relieved of further representation of

defendant.

5. Resolution of the petitions for ancillary hearing, filed

by third parties World Savings Bank and Bodisere Okonma are held

in abeyance pending the outcome of defendant’s anticipated appeal

of the amended judgment in the fraud case. 

6. The United States Marshal is directed to return

defendant to the federal penitentiary to which he has been

designated for service of his sentence. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 8 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 9

STATUS CONFERENCE

Following the hearing after remand, a status conference was

held in both cases to address the motions filed by defendant in

pro per.

A. Cr. No. S-02-0257, the fraud case

1. Counts One and Seven

Defendant has filed several motions concerning the fraud

counts to which he pled guilty. These motions are: 1) a § 2255

petition (docket entry 138 filed July 10, 2006, and amended by

docket entry 142 filed July 21, 2006, and amended a second time

by docket entry 218 filed February 5, 2007); 2) a motion to

correct sentence on Count Seven (docket entry 158 filed September

5, 2006); 3) a motion to withdraw plea (docket entry 160 filed

September 8, 2006); 4) a motion to vacate restitution order

(docket entry 204 filed December 15, 2006); and 5) a motion to

void sentence on Counts One and Seven (docket entry 244 filed May

1, 2007). 

The motion to correct sentence on Count Seven and the motion

to withdraw plea, both of which were previously held in abeyance

by the court, and the motion to vacate restitution order, and the

motion to void sentence on Counts One and Seven, are DENIED. The

appellate court affirmed defendant’s sentence and conviction on

the counts to which he pled guilty in its memorandum opinion

filed June 29, 2006. Accordingly, defendant’s sole vehicle for

raising issues about his conviction and sentence is a § 2255

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 9 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 10

petition, which he has already filed. The court will permit

defendant to file a third amended § 2255 petition in order to add

issues contained in his motion to correct sentence, motion to

withdraw plea, motion to vacate restitution order, and motion to

void sentence. No further amendments will be allowed without

permission. A briefing schedule for this motion is set forth at

the end of this order. In addition, defendant is reminded that

he waived appeal and collateral attack of his convictions and

sentence as part of his plea agreement. The Ninth Circuit

allowed an exception to that waiver solely for the purpose of

challenging the forfeiture order.

2. Counts Nine and Ten

Defendant filed several motions concerning the forfeiture

counts of conviction, some of which have already been resolved by

the court. The remaining motions are: 1) a motion for new trial

on Counts Nine & Ten (docket entry 127 filed April 19, 2006, 

amended by docket entry 130 filed May 11, 2006, and supplemented

by docket entry 134 filed June 5, 2006); 2) a motion to dismiss

Counts Nine and Ten (docket entry 157 filed August 31, 2006); a

motion for return of 529 funds (docket entry 177 filed October 5,

2006); and 4) a motion to resubmit the motion for new trial

(docket entry 250 filed May 16, 2007). 

Defendant’s motion for new trial on Counts Nine and Ten was

DEFERRED pending resolution of defendant’s appeal. The motion to

dismiss and motion for return of 529 funds were previously DENIED

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 10 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 11

WITHOUT PREJUDICE subject to renewal by appointed counsel. 

However, during his tenure in the case, appointed counsel did not

renew the motions, whether intentionally or out of neglect is

unknown. In any event these motions have not yet been considered

by the court. At the hearing after remand the court informed the

parties that the motions were denied by virtue of counsel’s

failure to renew them. Now, however, upon reflection, the court

has reconsidered and will address the motions. A briefing

schedule is set out at the end of this order. 

B. Cr. No. S-02-0560, the immigration case 

Defendant filed two motions concerning this case, a motion

for new trial (docket entry 117 filed July 13, 2006), and a §

2255 petition (docket entry 136 filed October 24, 2006, amended

by docket entry 147 filed December 29, 2006). A briefing

schedule for these motions is set forth at the end of this order.

C. Miscellaneous motions

Defendant filed several miscellaneous motions, arguably

applicable to both cases. Two of those motions remain to be

decided. The first, a “complaint” alleging denial of access to

legal materials and the law library and cruel and unusual

punishment while incarcerated at the Sacramento County Jail in

September and October of 2006 (docket entry 173 in Cr. No. 02-

0257) was filed October 3, 2006. This “complaint” is not

properly raised in the context of this criminal proceeding, and

on that basis is DENIED. Defendant’s recourse for challenging

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 11 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 12

his conditions of confinement is to initiate a civil rights

action against his jailer. 

The other remaining miscellaneous motion is a motion for resentencing (docket entry 138 in Cr. No. S-02-0560 and docket

entry 184 in Cr. No. S-02-0257) filed October 25, 2006. It seeks

re-sentencing upon resolution of the remanded issue. Contrary to

defendant’s assertions, the remand from the Ninth Circuit was a

limited one. Only the forfeiture order was remanded and only for

the purpose of re-computing the amount of monies directly

traceable to defendant’s fraud. That computation has now

occurred and an amended judgment reflecting the new forfeiture

amount has been entered. To the extent defendant’s motion for

re-sentencing seeks additional relief, it is DENIED. 

D. Briefing Schedule

1. Defendant shall file and serve his third amended §

2255 petition with respect to Counts One and Seven of the fraud

case, Cr. No. S-02-0257, within 60 days from the filing date of

this order. The government shall file and serve its opposition

within 30 days after service of the amended petition. Defendant

may file and serve a reply within 30 days after service of the

opposition. The matter will stand submitted upon timely receipt

of the reply brief.

2. Defendant’s motions for new trial, motion to

dismiss and motion for return of 529 funds, all of which were

filed in connection with Counts Nine and Ten, may not be amended. 

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 12 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 13

The government shall file and serve opposition to these motions

within 45 days from the filing date of this order. Defendant may

file and serve a reply within 30 days after service of the

opposition. The matter will stand submitted upon timely receipt

of the reply brief.

3. Defendant’s pending § 2255 petition in the

immigration case, Cr. No. S-02-0560, may not be amended absent

court order. The government’s opposition to the pending petition

shall be filed and served within 45 days from the filing date of

this order. Defendant may file and serve a reply within 30 days

after service of the opposition. The matter will stand submitted

upon timely receipt of the reply brief.

4. Defendant’s motion for new trial in the immigration

case, Cr. No. 02-0560, is ordered SUBMITTED and will be resolved

in a separate order.

5. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order

on AUSA Skipper, attorney Michael Bigelow and Roland Adams. 

Service on Adams shall be at BOTH the Sacramento Co. Jail and

McRae Correctional Facility, Reg #13785-097, P. O. Drawer 30,

McRae, Georgia 31055.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007

/s/ Edward J. Garcia 

EDWARD J. GARCIA, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:02-cr-00560-EJG Document 172 Filed 05/29/07 Page 13 of 13