# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 30 50

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ade to ku nb o Ol ub un m i Ad ejum o

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 8

Fi le d: Nov em

be r 7, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, KELL Y, and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ade to ku nb o Olu bu nm i Ade jum o m ov ed un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 to va cat e hi s

se nt en ce fo r ba nk frau d an d ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft

. His th eo ry was th at hi s co un se l

w a s in effe ct iv e by fai li ng to do two th in gs th at a reas on ab le at to rn ey wou ld ha ve

do ne : ad vi se hi m of t he co ns eq ue nc es of te st ifyin g at a pr et ria l-r el eas e rev oc at io nhe ari ng an d ob ject to th e am ou nt of lo ss su ffer ed by th e vi ct im s o f th e frau d. The

di st ric t co ur t de ni ed bo th cl ai m s wit ho ut ho ld in g an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. W e affi rm

.

1

I.

Ade jum o, as well as se ve ral acco m pl i c e s , d e v is ed a sc he m e to us e st ol en

id en ti ty in fo rm at io n to de frau d se ve ral m ajor ba nk s ou t of m il li on s of do ll ars

. Rat he r

th an pr oc eed to tri al

, Ade ju mo p l e a d e d gu il ty to on e co un t of ba nk frau d an d on e

co un t of ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft

. 18 U.S.C. §§ 10 28 A, 13 44

. In th e pl ea ag reem en t,

he ad m it te d “ th at [h e an d hi s acco m pl ic es ] ob ta in ed or at te m

pt ed to ob ta in in ex ces s

of $1 ,00 0,0 00 in frau du le nt pr oc eed s” an d th at he “ be li ev e[d ]” hi s of fen se le ve l un de r

th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s sh ou ld b e in crea se d by si xt een le ve ls “ be cau se th e lo ss

am ou nt w a s m or e th an $1 ,00 0,0 00 bu t le ss th an $2 ,50 0,0 00 .” The pl ea ag reem en t

al so reco m

m en de d a red uc ti on for acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

.

The dis tr ic t co ur t in it ia ll y al lo wed Ade jum o to rem ai n free pe nd in g se nt en ci ng

. Afte r Ade

jum o was arre st ed fo r al le ge dl y as sa u l t i n g hi s gi rlf rie nd

, ho wev er, th e

go ve rn m en t as ke d th e co ur t to reco ns id er it s de ci si on an d pl ace hi m in pr is on

. At th e

he ari ng to co ns id er t he go ve rn m en t’s req ue st

, Ade jum o de ni ed th e as sa ul t. The

m ag is tra te jud ge who pr es id ed ov er th e he ari ng sp e c i f i cal ly st at ed th at he di d no t

be li ev e Ade

jum o a nd rev ok ed hi s re le as e.

The co ns eq ue nc es of Ade jum o’s de c i s i o n to te st ify di d no t en d th ere. At

se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t Ad ejum o ha d co m m it te d pe rjury at th e

rev oc at io n he ari ng

. Th e co ur t th en ci te d th e pe rjury fin di ng as reas on to in crea se

Ade jum o’s o f

f e ns e le ve l fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1

, an d de ny th e

reco m m en de d red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , id

. § 3E1 .1. The co ur t al so

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-in crea se d Ade jum o’s of

fen se le v e l b a s e d on th e lo ss am ou nt sp eci fie d in th e pl ea

ag reem en t, whi ch th e co ur t co nc lu de d was bi nd in g on th e pa rti es

. Id

. § 2B 1.1 (b )(1 ).

The co ur t se nt en ced Ade

jum o to 124 m on th s in pr is on , th e ap pr ox im at e m id way po in t

of hi s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge

. W e affi rm ed Ade jum o’s se nt en ce on di rect ap pe al

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Ad

ej umo , 77 2 F .3d 51 3, 5 34 –3 8 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ).

A f te r hi s co nv ic ti on be cam e fin al

, Ade jum o m ov ed to va cat e hi s s e n t e n c e

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( a). In th e m ot io n, h e p res en te d fiv e th eo rie s in an effo rt t o

pe rs ua de th e di st ric t co ur t th at he ha d rece iv ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. The

di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n wit ho ut ho ld in g an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. W e gr an te d

hi m a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on two is su es : whe th e r d efen se co un se l “ was

in effe ct i v e b y fai li ng to ad vi se

. . . Ade jum o [ab ou t] th e ris ks of te st ifyin g at th e”

he ari ng an d whe th er de fen se co un se l “ pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce . . . in fai li ng

to ch al le ng e or ob

ject to th e lo ss am ou nt at tri bu ta bl e to

. . . Ade jum o.” Tho se are th e

on ly two i ss ue s b efo re u s. 2

II.

Und er 28 U.S.C. § 22 55

, pr is on ers can c h a l l en ge th ei r se nt en ces by fil in g a

m ot io n al le gi ng in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l. Se e, e.g

. , Ca lk in s v. Uni te d St at es , 79 5 F.3 d 89 6, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Ord in ari ly, th e di st ric t co ur t m u s t ho ld an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng a n d mak e fact ua l fin di ng s be fo re ru li ng on th e m eri ts of th e

m ot io n. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (b ). A he ari ng is un ne ces sa ry , ho wev er, if “ th e m ot io n an d

th e fil es an d reco rd s of th e cas e co nc lu si ve ly sh ow th at th e pr is on er is en ti tl ed to no

rel ie f . . . .” Id

.

W hi le Ade

jum o’s m ot io n fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab i l it y was pe nd in g, he 2

fil ed an ot he r m ot io n se ek in g pe rm is si on to ad d a cl ai m ba se d on “ ne wly di sc ov ered

ev id en ce” or , in th e al te rn at iv e, to fil e a se co nd se ct io n 22 55 m ot io n. W e ex pr es sl y de ni e d th e m ot io n in ou r Ja nu ary 9, 20 17 or de r gr an ti ng hi m a cert ifi cat e of

ap pe al ab il it y

. Neit he r th e m ot io n no r th e al le ge dl y ne w cl ai m is cu rren tl y be fo re us

.

-3

-T o pr ev ai l on his ine ff ec tiv e- as sis ta

nc e- of -c ou ns el cl ai m s, Ade

jum o m us t sh ow

th at co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce “ fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le ne ss ” an d

th at “ th ere is a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at

, bu t fo r co un se l’s un pr of es si on al erro rs , th e

res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t.” St ri ckl an d v. W as hi ng to n , 46 6

U.S. 66 8, 68 8, 69 4 (1 98 4)

. Wh e n e va lu at in g in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s, a co ur t

“ m us t i n d ul ge a st ro ng pr es um pt io n th at co un se l’s co nd uc t [fel l] wit hi n th e wid e

ran ge of reas on ab le pr of

es si on al as si st an ce” to whi ch a cri m in al de fen da nt is en ti tl ed

. Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s , 27 8 F .3d 83 9, 8 42 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

A.

In th e fir st of hi s two cl ai m s, Ade jum o arg ue s th at de fen se co un se l w as

co n s t i t u t io na ll y in effe ct iv e by fai li ng to “ ad vi se [h im ] of th e ob vi ou s ris ks of

te st ifyin g,” in cl ud in g th at “ if th e [c]ou rt di sb el ie ve d [h im ], ” it co ul d le ng th en hi s

ov eral l se nt en ce. Ade

jum o al le ge s th at if he ha d be en m ad e aware of al l th e ris ks

, he

ne ve r wou ld ha ve te st ifi ed

. The ad di ti on of th e ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t

an d th e lo ss of th e acce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty red uc ti on rai se d hi s ad vi so ry

Gui de li ne s ra ng e b y

ap pr ox im at el y

fou r y ears

.

W e ag r e e w i t h th e di st ric t co ur t th at

, ev en as su m in g al l of Ade jum o’s

al le ga ti on s are tru e, he ha s no t st at ed a cl ai m of in ef f ect iv e as si st an ce of co un se l.

Perju ry is at th e he art of th is is su e. As Ade jum o rel uc ta nt ly ack no wled ge s, we m us t

acce pt th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at he co m m it te d pe rjury whe n he te st ifi ed th at he

di d n ot ass au lt hi s g irl fri en d.

To th e ex te nt th at Ade

jum o arg ue s de fen se co un se l was co ns ti tu ti on al ly

in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ad vi se hi m to te st ify tru th fu ll y , th e oa th he swo re pro vi de d

hi m wit h su ffi ci en t no ti ce of th is ba si c ob li ga t i o n

. “ Onc e a wit ne ss swe ars to gi ve

tru th fu l an swe rs , th ere is no req ui rem en t to warn hi m no t to co m m it pe rjury or ,

co nv ers el y [,] to di re c t h i m to te ll th e tru th

. It wou ld ren de r th e sa nc ti ty o f th e oa th

-4

-qu it e m ean in gl es s to req ui re ad m on it io n to ad he re to it .” Uni te d St at es v. Man du ja no , 42 5 U.S. 56 4, 58 1– 82 (1 97 6) (p lu ral it y op in io n) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, ci ta ti on ,

an d em ph as is om it te d)

. The oa th in fo rm ed Ade jum o th at he was un de r a du ty to te ll

th e tru th or face pu ni sh m en t, so de fen se c o u n s e l was no t req ui red to pr eem pt iv el y

warn Ade jum o of an ob li ga ti on th at wou ld ot he rwis e be m ad e cl ear to hi m be fo re he

te st ifi ed

. Cf

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Day , 2 85 F.3 d 11 67 , 1 17 1 (9 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ Day was

no t fo rced to co mm i t pe rjury be cau se hi s co un se l [g av e hi m m is ta ke n ad vi ce]. By

ch oo si ng

. . . to te st ify tru th fu ll y , Day wou ld ha ve av oi de d th e two -p oi nt ob st ru ct io n

of jus ti ce en ha nc em en t.”)

.

To t he ex te nt th at Adeju m o c ha ll en ge s defe ns e co un se l’s fail ur e to warn hi m

ab ou t al l t he po ss ib le co ns eq ue nc es of hi s de ci si on to tes ti fy , hi s ar gu m en t fa il s fo r

a di ffer en t reas on

. Eve n th ou gh it m ay n o w se em eas y to hypo th es iz e th at de fen se

co un se l sh ou ld ha ve do ne m or e, on ly wit h th e be ne fit of hi nd si gh t can we id en ti fy th e

fu ll arra y of ris ks th at Ade jum o faced by te st ifyin g. Cf

. Ko ko ra le is v. Gil mor e , 13 1

F.3 d 69 2, 69 6 (7 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at “ th e rig ht pe rs pe ct iv e [fo r ev al ua ti ng an

in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m ] is ex an te

. . . rat he r th an ex po st ”).

Lit ig at io n is un pr ed ic ta bl e an d Ade jum o’s de ci si on to te st ify co ul d ha ve pl ay ed ou t

in a nu m be r of way s, bu t th at th e m ag is tra te jud ge wou ld fin d th at Ade jum o ha d

te st ifi ed fal se ly and th at th e d is tri ct co ur t wo ul d l en gt he n hi s sen te nc e ba se d o n t he

fal se te st im on y was ha rd ly th e m os t li ke ly ou tc om e. Cf

. Pad il la v. Ken tu cky

, 55 9

U.S

. 3 5 6

, 3 6 9 (2 01 0) (“ [W] he n th e de po rta ti on co ns eq ue nc e is tr ul y cl ea r , . . . [d efen se co un se l’s] du ty to gi ve co rrec t ad vi ce is eq ua ll y cl ear.” (em ph as is ad de d) );

Day

, 28 5 F.3 d at 11 71 –7 2 (rejec ti ng an in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m th at al le ge d th at

co un se l’s m is ta ke n ad vi c e cau se d th e de fen da nt to gi ve pe rjure d te st im on y an d

rece iv e an ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc e m en t). Afte r al l, wit ne ss es are freq ue nt ly

di sb el ie ve d, bu t rare ly are th ey pu ni sh ed fo r pe rjury. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Dun ni

ga n , 50 7 U.S. 8 7, 9 5 (1 99 3)

.

-5

-O u r t a s k he re is no t to se co nd -g ue ss ev ery de ci si on , bu t rat he r to as k wha t a

reas on ab le la wy er wou ld ha ve do ne un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces

. Se e St ri ckl an d

, 46 6

U

. S . a t 68 8– 89

. The di ss en t wou ld req ui re m or e of Ade jum o’s la wy er be ca u s e t h e

in crea se d Gui de li ne s ran ge was le ga ll y au th or iz ed an d m ig ht ha ve cau gh t a la y pe rs on by su rp ris e. The fir st po in t is al way s tru e. No la wy er ne ed s to warn a cl ie nt th at th e jud ge m ay do so m et hi ng th e la w do es no t al lo w. And th e se co nd po in t is tru e of an y

nu m be r of ris ks th at m ay ari se in an on go in g cri m in al cas e. Bu t a reas on ab le la wy er

can no t be ex pe ct ed to pr ov id e a cl ie nt wit h a la un dr y li st of po te nt ia l ba d ou tc om es ,

no m at te r ho w rem ot e or sp ecu la ti ve , fo r ev ery de ci si on face d du rin g li ti ga ti on —n or

wou ld it be he lp fu l fo r cl ie nt s i f at to rn ey s wer e to do so

.

By reject in g Ade

jum o’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m on th es e facts

,

we do no t m ean to su gg es t th at an at to rn ey can al lo w a cl ie nt to ta ke th e st an d wit ho ut

ha vi ng an

y di sc us si on a b ou t th e de ci si on to te st ify. Und er th e ci rcu m st an ces , ho wev er, de fen se co un se l di d no t ne ed to warn Ade jum o of th e sp ecu la ti ve ris k th at

fal se te st im on y wou ld le a d to th e un us ua l ch ai n of ev en ts th at oc cu rred he re.

Acco rd in gl y , de fen se co un se l’s ha nd li ng of Ade ju m o’s de ci si on to te st ify di d no t

“ f[al l] bel ow an ob

jecti ve st an da rd of r eas on ab le ne ss .” Id

. at 6 88

.

B.

Ad e ju m o’s ot he r cl ai m al le ge s th at de fen se co un se l pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce by co nc ed in g th e am ou nt of lo ss at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Alt ho ug h th e

pa rti es ag reed up on th e am ou nt whe n Ade jum o pl ead ed gu il ty, Ade jum o cl ai m s th at

de fen se co un se l st il l sh ou ld ha ve ob jecte d. Req ui rin g th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e th e

lo ss am ou nt

, acco rd in g to Ade jum o, wou ld ha ve res ul te d in a lo wer Gui de li ne s ran ge

be cau se th ere was ins uf

fic ie nt ev id en ce to pro ve th at th e to ta l lo ss es fro m th e frau d

ex ceed ed $1 m il li on

. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 ) & cm t. n .3(A) (i) –( ii ) (req ui rin g a

co ur t to in crea se t h e of

fen se le ve l ba se d on th e am ou nt of m on ey a de fen da nt ha s

st ol en or t rie d t o s te al ).

-6

-The pl ea ag reem en t es ta bl is he s th at de fen se co un se l’s co nc es si on was

ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st a n c e s

. In two di ffer en t sp ot s, Ade jum o

ad m it te d tryin g to st eal m or e th an $1 m il li on , a su m th at he “ be li ev e[d ]” sh ou ld res ul t

in a si xt een -le ve l in crea se in hi s of fen se le ve l. And Ade

jum o d i d n o t ex pr es sl y

res erv e th e rig ht to ch al le ng e th e lo ss am ou nt

. Acco rd in gl y , whe n th e di st ric t cou rt

as ke d whe th er Ade

ju m o was “ bo un d by” th e lo ss am ou nt sp eci fie d in th e pl ea

ag reem en t, d efen se co un se l co m m it te d n o o bv io us erro r by resp on di ng , “ y es .”

To be su re, so m e of th e st at em en ts at th e ch an ge -o f-p le a h e a r i n g were

co nf us in g an d m ay ha ve le ft Ade jum o wit h t he m is ta ke n im pr es si on th at th e lo ss

am ou nt was st il l a n op en qu es ti on

. Fo r ex am pl e, th e pr os ecu to r to ld Ade jum o,

“ [y ]our la wy er is go in g to arg ue ab ou t lo ss , bu t we’re go in g to te ll th e [c]ou rt th at [th e

of fen se le ve l] sh ou ld be in crea se d by 16 l e ve ls be cau se th e lo ss am ou nt is fro m 1

m il li on to 2.5 m il li on .” Thi s st at em en t was no t a co nc es si on , as Ad e ju mo no w

cl ai m s, th at he was free to ch al le ng e th e lo ss cal cu l a t io n. Cf

. Th omp so n v. Uni te d

St at e s , 8 7 2 F

. 3 d 56 0, 56 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (d ecl in in g to m od ify a pl ea ag reem en t

wit ho ut a cl ear st a t e men t fro m th e pr os ecu to r). Rat he r, it ack no wled ge d th e

po ss ib il it y th at de fen se co un se l wou ld in fact try to ch a l l e n g e th e lo ss am ou nt

,

no tw it hs ta nd in g th e cl ear t erm s o f th e p le a ag reem en t.

R e ga rd le ss , la te r in th e he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t tri ed to cl ear u p a n y

rema i ni ng co nf

us io n by as ki ng de fen se co un se l whe th er he act ua ll y “ di sa gr ee[d ]”

wit h th e lo ss am ou nt arri ve d at in th e pl ea ag reem en t. He im m ed ia te ly s ai d th at he

di d no t. By th e en d of th e ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng , it sh ou ld ha ve be en cl ear to

ev eryone in vo lv ed th at th e co ur t wou ld cal cu la te Ade jum o’s se nt en ce ba se d on th e

lo ss am ou nt sp eci fie d in th e pl ea ag r e e men t

, no t so m e ot he r am ou nt y et to be

de te rm in ed

. Acco rd in gl y , whe n de fen se co un se l co nc ed ed th at Ade jum o was bo un d

by hi s ad m is si on th at he tri ed to s t eal ov er $1 m il li on , co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce fel l

wit hi n “ th e wid e ran ge of reas on ab le pr of es si on al as si st an ce” to whi ch Ade jum o was

en ti tl ed

. Jo hn so n , 27 8 F .3d at 8 42

.

-7

-* * *

Bec au se bo th of Ade

jum o’s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m s fail as a

m at te r of law, t he di st ric t co ur t d id no t er r in de nyin g t he m wit ho ut fir st ho ld in g a n

ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. Se e Eng el en v. Uni te d St at es , 68 F.3 d 23 8, 24 0– 41 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 ).

III.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

A di st ric t co ur t sh al l “ gr an t a p r o mp t h eari ng ” on th e fil in g of a m ot io n

pu rs ua nt t o § 22 55 “ [u ]nle ss th e m ot io n an d th e fil es an d reco rd s of th e cas e

co nc lu si ve l y s h o w t h at th e pr is on er is en ti tl ed to no rel ie f.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (b ).

Ade jum o ha s al le ge d th at hi s at to rn ey was in effe ct iv e in fai li ng to ad vi se hi m of th e

ris ks of te st ifyin g at hi s pr et ria l rel eas e rev oc at io n he ari ng , an d in fai li ng to ch al le ng e

th e lo ss am ou nt fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng hi s se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Bec au se

I be li ev e th e fil es an d reco rd s of th is cas e do no t “ co nc lu si ve ly sh ow” th at Ade jum o

i s n o t e n t it le d to rel ie f on th es e gr ou nd s, I wou ld rem an d th is m at te r to th e di st ric t

co ur t fo r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng

. See, e.g ., Ro un dt ree v. Uni te d St at es , 75 1 F.3 d 92 3,

92 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (rem an di ng fo r ev id en ti ary he ari ng be cau se reco r d d i d no t

co nc lu si ve ly esta bl is h § 22 55 m ov an t was en ti tl ed to no rel ie f).

The ris k th at te st ifyin g wil l res ul t i n r ecei vi ng an ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce

en ha nc em en t an d th e lo ss of an acce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty red uc ti o n is no t so

rem ot e or sp ecu la ti ve th at a reas on ab le la wy er can no t be ex pe ct ed to ad vi se hi s cl ie nt

of th at ris k. The se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s co m m en ta ry st at es th at th e ob st ru ct io n- of

jus ti ce en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s t o “ co m m it ti ng , su bo rn in g, or at te m pt in g to su bo rn

-8

-pe rjury” a s well as “ pr ov id in g m at eri al ly fal se in f o r m at io n to a jud ge or m ag is tra te
jud ge .” USSG § 3C 1.1 cm t. n.4 (B), (F). It m ay be th at wit ne ss es are rare ly ch arg ed

wit h p erju ry . But it is no t at al l un us ua l fo r a de fen da nt to rece iv e an en ha nc em en t

fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce ba se d on te s t i mo n y th at a di st ric t co ur t fin ds pe rjuri ou s.

Mor eo ve r, the co m

m en ta ry to the ac cep ta nc e-o f-re sp on si bi li ty re duc tio n pr ovi de s tha t

“ [c]on du ct res ul ti ng in an en ha nc em en t un de r § 3C 1.1

. . . or di na ril y in di cat es th at th e

de fen da nt ha s no t acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s cri m in al co nd uc t.” USSG § 3E1 .1

cm t. n.4

. Thu s, th e ris ks as so ci at ed wit h te st ifyin g ex te nd be y on d th e ob st ru ct io n- of

jus ti ce en ha nc em en t: If a de fen da nt rece iv es an en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to § 3C 1.1 fo r

te st im on y th e co ur t de em s is m at eri al ly fal se or am ou nt s to pe rjury, h e al so for fei ts

an y reas on ab le op po rtu ni ty to earn a two - or th ree- le ve l red uc ti on in hi s of fen se le ve l

fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y. S e e A d e ju m o, 77 2 F.3 d at 53 6 (“ It is on ly in

‘ext rao rd in ary cas es ’ th at a de fen da nt who ha s be en fo un d to ha ve ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce

is eli gi bl e fo r th e acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y red uc ti on .” (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v

. Hut t e r e r , 7 0 6 F.3 d 92 1, 92 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ))). Eve n as su m in g a la y pe rs on

un de rs ta nd s th e co ns eq ue nc es of co m m it ti ng pe rjury, it is un reas on ab le to th in k th at

a cri m in al de fen da nt is su ffi ci en tl y flu en t in th e fed eral se n t e n c i n g Gui de li ne s to

un de rs ta nd th e fu ll ris ks ass oc ia te d wi th tes ti fy in g o n h is own be ha lf.

Als o re le va nt is th e fac t t ha t Ad ejum o t es ti fie d a t a he ari ng on th e p et it io n t o

rev ok e hi s pr et ria l rel eas e. The su bjec t of th e te st imo n y w a s an al le ge d al te rcat io n

wit h h i s g i r l f

r ie nd

, a to pi c th at on it s face se em ed un rel at ed to th e frau d ch arg es

Ade jum o was faci ng

. Tak in g an oa th warn s a de fen da nt

, li ke an y ot he r wit ne ss , th at

he m us t te ll th e tru th or el se po ss ib ly face a cri m in al ch arg e of pe rjury. Bu t th e oa th

is no su bs ti tu te fo r a de fen se at to rn ey di sc us si ng wit h a cl ie nt hi s te st im on y an d

ad vi si ng hi m of th e ris ks of th at te st im o n y— ris ks th at in th is cas e are se pa rat e an d

ap art fro m th e free st an di ng pe rjury ch arg e. Cf. Nazar en us v. Uni te d St at es , 69 F.3 d

13 9 1

, 1 3 9 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (d en y in g § 22 55 m ot io n aft er ev id en ti ary he ari ng

sh owi ng , am on g ot he r th in gs , t h a t l a wy er “ ta lk ed to [h is cl ie nt ] ab ou t te st ifyin g,

in fo rm in g h im

of t he be ne fit s an d ri sk s o f do in g s o” ).

-9

-I f A d ejum o’s co un se l fai le d to di sc us s th e ris ks an d po ss ib le be ne fit s o f

te st ifyin g at hi s rev oc at io n he ari ng , th at wou ld fal l b e lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of

reas on ab le ne ss

. Ade

jum o co ul d al so s h o w pr ejud ic e: By te st ifyin g as he di d,

Ade jum o bo th lo st a th ree- le ve l red uc ti on in hi s of fen se le ve l f

or acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y an d r e c e i v ed a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce,

res ul ti ng in a si gn ifi can tl y hi gh er ad vi so ry

sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge

.

An ev id en ti ary he ari ng w a s al so warra nt ed on Ade jum o’s cl ai m th at hi s

co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r no t co nt in ui ng to ch al le ng e th e lo ss am ou nt fo r whi ch he

sh ou ld be he ld res po ns ib le

. Ade jum o as se rts th at he al way s un de rs to od th at he wou ld

be ab le to ch al le ng e th e lo ss am ou nt an d th is is pa rt of wha t in du ce d h i m t o p l e ad

gu il ty. “ W he re a pl ea ag reem en t is am bi gu ou s, th e am

bi gu it ie s are co ns tru ed ag ai ns t

th e g o v e r n men t.” Mar ga ll i-Ol ve ra v. INS, 43 F.3 d 34 5, 35 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). And

“ [a]ny pr om is e mad e by th e Gov ern m en t th at co ns ti tu te s a si gn ifi can t pa rt of th e

de fen da n t ’s i n d u cem en t or co ns id erat io n fo r m ak in g th e pl ea ag reem en t m us t be

fu lfi ll ed to sa ti sf

y du e pr oc es s.” Uni te d Stat es v. Sto ba ug h, 4 20 F.3 d 79 6, 80 0 (8t h

C i r. 20 05 ). As th e co ur t no te s, th e go ve rn m en t m ad e se ve ral st at em e n t s a t t h e

ch an ge -o f-p le a he ari ng th at were co nf us in g an d m ay ha ve le f

t A d e ju mo wit h th e

un de rs ta nd in g t ha t t he lo ss am ou nt co ul d b e di sp ut ed

. In li gh t o f th e g ov ern m en t’s

st at em en ts

, Ade

jum o’s co un se l’s res po ns e to th e di st ric t co ur t th at th ere was no

di sa gr eem en t ab ou t pa rag rap h 6( b) of th e pl ea ag reem en t— th e pr ov is io n di sc us si ng

th e lo ss am ou nt —co ul d be in te rp ret ed to m ean th at th e pa rti es ag reed th at Ade jum o

-1 0-co ul d co nt es t th e lo ss am ou nt as on e of “ cert ai n p o s i t i o n s

. ” In de ed

, as th is co ur t 3

fo un d p rev io us ly:

W he n Ade

jum o ob jecte d to th e am ou nt o f lo ss reco m m en de d in th e

pr es en te nc e rep or t, th e go ve rn m en t di d no t co nt es t hi s ab il it y to do so

. At

se nt en ci ng , ho wev er, Ade jum o ag reed wit h th e co ur t th at he was bo un d by

th e st ip ul at io n in hi s pl ea ag reeme n t

. Beca us e he so ag re ed

, Ade jum o is

pr ecl ud ed fro m

di sp ut in g t he lo ss am ou nt on ap pe al

.

Ade jum o, 7 72 F.3d at 5 38 (em ph as is ad de d)

.

If co un se l’s pe rfo rm an ce fel l be lo w an ob jecti ve st an da rd of reas on ab le ne ss on

th is is su e, an ev id en ti ary he ari ng wou ld al so be ne ces sa ry to de te rm in e whe th er

Ade jum o can sh ow pr ejud ic e. Ade jum o pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of ba nk frau d

The co ur t fo cu se s o n t he fol lo win g e xc ha ng e: 3

The di st ric t co ur t: Cou ns el , is th at y ou r un de rs ta nd in g o f

th e p le a ag reem en t?

Co un se l f

o r A de jum o: Yes

, You r Hon or , ex cep t to th e

ex te nt th at in Co un t 8 in al l of th e cat eg or ie s, (a) th ro ug h (i)

, th at ou r un d ers ta nd in g is th e de fen da nt wou ld be

al lo wed to arg ue cert ai n p os it io ns

.

Pro se cu to r: Th at ’s tru e, You r Hon or

.

The di st ric t co ur t: W el l, le t’s go to pa rag r ap h 6 so it ’s

cl ear. Co un t 8, pa rag rap hs (a), (b ), th ere’s no di sa gr eem en t

on th os e two pa rag rap hs , is th at co rrec t?

Co un se l fo r Ade

jum o: Cor rect , You r Hon or

.

-1 1-an d o ne co un t o f ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft

. He di d n ot pl ead gu il ty to a c on sp ira cy

.

The fact ua l ba si s in th e p l e a a gr eem en t li m it ed Ade jum o’s rel ev an t co nd uc t to th e

y ears 20 08 –2 00 9

, a n d th e pa rti es ag reed th at Ade jum o “ an d ot he rs ” frau du le nt ly

ob ta in ed or at te m

pt ed to ob ta in m or e th an $1 ,00 0,0 00

. See al so U n it ed St at es v.

Ad ejum o, 84 8 F.3 d 86 8, 87 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (v acat in g res ti tu ti on or de r in th is cas e

be cau s e “t h e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce was cl earl y in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th e ul ti m at e

lo ss es su ffer ed by th e vi ct im s” ). Hav in g pr es en te d a co lo rab le cl ai m fo r in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce of co un se l as well as d i s pu te d fact s, Ade jum o was en ti tl ed to an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng . Accor di ng ly, I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-1 2-