UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4388

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

UGOCHUKWU ENWEREM, a/k/a Joseph Smith, a/k/a Ugo,

 Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00157-GCM-DCK-2)

Argued: March 23, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012

Before Sandra Day O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Retired), Supreme 

Court of the United States, sitting by designation, TRAXLER, 

Chief Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

ARGUED: Ross Hall Richardson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH 

CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Daniel Steven Goodman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Henderson Hill, 

Executive Director, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, 

INC., Charlotte, North Carolina; Allison Wexler, Matthew Segal, 

FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellant. Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant 

Attorney General, Greg D. Andres, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Laura N. Perkins, Nicole H. Sprinzen, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Ugochukwu Enwerem on one count of

conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 371, and fourteen counts of wire fraud, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. After calculating Enwerem’s advisory 

Guidelines range to be 188-235 months, the district court 

granted an 80-month downward variance and sentenced Enwerem to 

concurrent sentences of 60 months of imprisonment on the 

conspiracy count and 108 months of imprisonment on each wire 

fraud count. In this appeal, Enwerem challenges his sentence on 

several grounds. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. For 

several years, Enwerem participated in an advance fee fraud 

conspiracy (the “conspiracy”). Victims received letters or emails informing them that they had, for example, won a lottery,

inherited a substantial sum of money, or, in a format referred 

to as the “pipeline scheme” in this case, could collect funds 

remaining from a government contract. Supposedly to receive the 

proceeds, victims sent comparatively small fees, usually through 

Western Union, to locations in Western Europe. Members of the 

conspiracy called “westies” would pick up the money at Western 
4

Union locations, and each member of the conspiracy received a 

portion of the collected fees.

Kent Okojie brought Enwerem into the conspiracy in 

2004. Enwerem began as a westie, picking up money transfers in 

Spain. Later, Enwerem followed Okojie to Amsterdam, where he 

answered phone calls from victims and helped with other 

administrative matters related to the conspiracy.

In 2007, after an investigation into the conspiracy, 

Dutch police searched both Okojie’s and Enwerem’s apartments. 

The police seized documentation on USB and hard drives as well 

as fake passports and bank account information. The Dutch 

police turned the evidence over to U.S. postal inspectors, who 

used it to identify victims and to establish the verifiable loss 

attributable to Enwerem and the conspiracy. 

II.

On appeal, Enwerem argues that the district court 

failed to make particularized findings sufficient to explain its 

loss calculations.* Specifically, Enwerem challenges the 

 * Enwerem raises four additional issues: (1) the inclusion 

of losses sustained by foreign victims to calculate attributable 

loss, (2) the application of an aggravating-role enhancement, 

(3) the application of a government-actor enhancement, and (4) 

the propriety of the imposed restitution order. We have 

reviewed these claims and find them to be without merit.
5

inclusion of losses sustained by victims in the pipeline scheme

as relevant conduct pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). 

“[T]he determination of loss attributable to a fraud 

scheme is a factual issue for resolution by the district court, 

and we review such a finding of fact only for clear error.” 

United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 671 (4th Cir. 2001). 

However, “a sentencing court, in order to hold a defendant 

accountable for the conduct of his coconspirators, should make 

particularized findings with respect to both prongs of § 

1B1.3(a)(1)(B),” including the scope of criminal activity agreed 

on by the defendant and the foreseeability of his coconspirators’ conduct. United States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471, 

499 (4th Cir. 2003).

In attributing the pipeline scheme amounts to Enwerem, 

the district court made sufficient individualized findings. See

J.A. 1239-1243. During the sentencing hearing, the court 

indicated that foreseeability was the touchstone for attributing 

this loss to Enwerem and, specifically, referenced a phone call 

by Enwerem to a co-conspirator in which Enwerem sought proceeds 

from this part of the conspiracy. Then, after entertaining 

argument from both counsel for Enwerem and the government on the 

loss issue, the court specifically adopted the government’s 

version of the loss amounts, which expressly included the loss 

caused by the pipeline scheme. Although the court perhaps could 
6

have more precisely articulated its findings, the record 

demonstrates the court had an individualized basis for the loss 

attributed to Enwerem. We find no clear error in that

determination.

III.

For the foregoing reasons we affirm the judgment of 

the district court.

AFFIRMED