2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-12-2007 

# U SA v . Af uwa jomo P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3968

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Af uwa j omo " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 85. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/85H on. J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef Judge , U ni t ed S t at es C our tof * I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 3968

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KOYOD E AF UWAJ OM O, a l s o k n o w n a s A J O R I N D E P . MI L L E R - A G A N Y E MI

K oy ode A fuw aj om o, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00052- 1 ) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber10, 2007 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( Fi l ed D ece m ber12, 2007 )2 OP I NI ON SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. K oy ode A fuw aj om o, an i l l egal i m m i gr antfr om N i ger i a, w as convi ct ed i n J une 1993 forthe i m por t at i on and pos s es s i on of her oi n w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, and w as s e n t e n c e d t o s i x tymo n th s i mp r i s o n me n ta n d f o u ry e a r s o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . Atth e t i me of hi s entryi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1987 and ther eaf t er , i ncl udi ng dur i ng the per i od of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, A fuw aj om o us ed the i dent i tyof hi s y oungercous i n, A y or i nde M ill e r-A g a n y e m i, w h o w a s b o rn in th e U n ited S tate s in 1 9 7 4 b u t w h o m o v e d w ith h is f a m ilyto N ig e ria in 1 9 7 7 . M ill e r-A g a n y e m i h a d a h e a rin g a n d sp e e c h d isa b ili ty , an d h is sta tu s a s a d isa b led y o u th w a s th e b a sis f o r th e v u ln e ra b le v ictim e n h a n c e m e n t. In 1 9 9 7 , M ill e r-A g a n y e m i ap p lied to th e U n ited S tate s E m b a ss yin L a g o s, N ig e ria t o r enew hi s expi r ed A m er i can pa s s por t , butthatappl i cat i on w as deni ed bec aus e of A f u w a j o m o ’ s 1 9 9 3 d ru g c o n v i c t i o n u s i n g M i l l e r - A g a n ye m i ’ s i d e n t i ty. U l t i m a t e l y, M i l l er - A gany emi ’ s fami l yw as abl e t o pr ove hi s true i dent i tyand he r ece i ved a r enew ed p a s s p o rt . H e , h is m o th e r a n d s is te r t h e n re lo c a te d to th e U n ite d S ta te s . In 2 0 0 2 , A fu w ajom o fil ed a f rau d u lent S tat em en t of

L o st Pa ssp o rtan d a p assp o rt a p p lica tio n , ag a in b e a rin g th e n a m e o f M ill e r-A g a n y e m i, an d su b m itt e d a b irth c e rtific a te a n d d r i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e a l s o b e a r i n g th a tn a me . He r e c e i v e d a Un i t e d S t a t e s p a s s p o r t . He w as ul t i m at el ychar ged w i th, and pl ed gui l tyt o, m aki ng fal s e s t at ement s i n hi s 2002 pas s por tappl i cat i on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 1542 and 2 and w as s ent ence d onT h e c o u rt w a s inf o rm e d th a t A f

u w a jo m o is c u rre n tlystill 1 i n cus t odyof the i m m i gr at i on author i t i es and i s s chedul ed t o have a n im m ig ra tio n h e a ri n g in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 8 . 3 A ugus t22, 2006 t o ei ght een mont hs i m pr i s onm entand a thr ee- y eart erm of s upervi s ed re le a s e . A fuw aj om o compl et ed s ervi ng hi s fede r al pr i s on s ent ence on oraboutD ece m ber 15, 2006, havi ng been i n cus t odys i nce the dat e of hi s arr es ton A ugus t25, 2005. A ft er s ervi ng t i m e i n s t at e cus t odyon s t at e cha r ges , A fuw aj om o w as det ai ned byi m m i gr at i on author i t i es on J anuary22, 2007 pendi ng hi s deport at i on. 1 T hi s m att ercomes be for e us on A fuw aj om o’ s appea l fr om the s ent ence i m pos ed on hi s 2006 fede r al convi ct i on, fol l ow i ng hi s gui l typl ea, form aki ng fal s e s t at ement s on h is pa ssp o rt . Init ial ly , w e m u st co n side r th e g o v ern m en t’ s arg u m en t th at A fu w ajom o ’s appea l has been r ender ed moot bythe compl et i on of hi s pr i s on t erm . A l though an inca rce rated d ef

en d an t’ s ch all en g e to th e v ali d ityo f h is co n v ict ion sati sfies th e c ase -orcontr over s yr equi r ement , the def endant ’ s s ui tbecomes m ootupon r el eas e unl es s s /he ca n demonstr at e s om e “c ol l at er al cons equenc e” thatcont i nues bey ond the expi r at i on of the s ent ence and i s “l i kel yt o be r edr es s ed bya fa vor abl e j udi ci al deci s i on. ” Spence rv. K e m n a , 5 2 3 U .S . 1 , 7 (1 9 9 8 ) ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). M o re o v e r, a r el eas ed def

endant ’ s not - y et - compl et ed mandat oryt erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e does not cons t i tut e an a dver s e cons equenc e thatcan be r edr es s ed bya fa vor abl e j udi ci al deci s i on on a cha l l enge t o hi s al r eady - s erved pr i s on t i m e, as a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e ca nnotbe4

r e du c e d “ byr e a s on of

e xc e s s t i me s e r ve d i n p r i s on . ” U ni t e d St a t e s v. J oh ns on , 52 9 U. S. 5 3 , 6 0 (20 0 0 ); D eF o yv . M cC u ll o u g h , 3 9 3 F . 3 d 4 3 9 , 4 4 2 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I f A fuw aj om o’ s appea l i s onl ychal l engi ng the l ength of hi s pr i s on t erm , bas ed upon an i m pr opergui del i ne ca l cul at i on, then thi s appea l w oul d be r ender ed moot byt he fac tthathe has ful l ys erved hi s pr i s on s ent ence . A l though w e agr ee w i th the governm ent that the essence o f A fuw aj om o’s appeal appears t o g o to the calcul at i on of h i s offen se l evel and gui del i ne r ange us ed t o det erm i ne hi s pr i s on s ent ence , hi s appea l w oul d notbe m ooti f hi s cl ai m w er e thathi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e w as i nval i d, a cl ai m thatm aybe gl eane d fr om por t i ons of hi s br i ef. I n U ni t ed St at es v. C ot t m an, 142 F. 3d 160, 165 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , thi s courtnot ed th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a p p e a l w a s n o t re n d e re d m o o t b yv irtu e o f h is h a v in g se rv e d h is pr i s on t erm , beca us e “i f w e w er e t o fi nd an err ori n the appl i cat i on of the [s ent enci ng] enhanc ement , the appr opr i at e s ent enci ng r ange w oul d be r educe d . . . [and t ] hi s r educt i on w oul d l i kel ym er i ta cr edi tagai ns t[the def endant ’ s ] per i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e fort he exce s s per i od of i m pr i s onm entt o w hi ch [he ] w as s ubj ect ed. ” A l though J ohns on r ej ect ed the not i on of “c r edi t i ng” exc es s pr i s on t i m e aga i ns ta def endant ’ s t erm of s upervi s ed re lea se , a d e c re a se in A f u w a jo m o ’s s e n ten c e o n re m a n d c o u ld a f f e c t th e ter m o f

h is s upervi s ed r el eas e i n t hi s cas e w her e ther e i s no s t atut orym i ni m um per i od of s upervi s ed release . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . V erd in, 24 3 F . 3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (de fe n d an t’ s a p p e a l n o t m o o t b e c a u se su c c e ss “ c o u ld a lter th e su p e rv ise d re lea se p o rtio n o f h is5

s ent ence ” ( quot i ng D aw s on v. Scot t , 50 F. 3d 884, 886 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v . T ro tter, 2 7 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 0 , 1 1 5 2 -5 3 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ O ]n re m a n d a d istric t ju d g e w o u ld have di s cr et i on t o s hor t en the t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. ”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. S w igert, 1 8 F . 3 d 4 4 3 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )). T h e g o v ern m en t ci tes t o U n it ed S tat es v . B lack b u rn, 46 1 F . 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 (2d C ir . 2006) , t o s uppor ti t s ar gum entthatthe appe al i s m ootbeca us e i ti s unl i kel ythatthe D istri ct C o u rtw o u ld im p o se a red u ce d term o f su p erv ised release o n rem an d . T h at co u rt n o ted in a f

o o tno te th at “w e m ayassu m e tha t i n the typ ical cas e [ w h ere the d istri ct co u rt is n o t so e x p licit a b o u t su p e rv ise d re lea se ], . . . an a p p e llate c o u rt c o u ld f a irlyd e e m it l i kel yenough that , i f the mer i t s i s s ue w er e dec i ded i n favorof the def endant , the di s tr i ct courtw oul d us e i t s di s cr et i on on r emand t o m odi fythe l ength of a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e” s o l ong as the r eas on fordoi ng s o i s nott o offs etexce s s pr i s on t i m e. I d. at262 n. 2. U nl i ke B l ackburn, thi s cas e fi t s w i thi n the r ange of “typi cal cas e[s ] ” thatm ay r es ul ti n a modi fi ed t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e on r emand. Fori ns t ance , the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s s t at ementthatthe vul ner abl e vi ct i m enhanc ementw oul d notnece s s ar i l yhave “ a dr amat i c pr act i cal aff

ect[s i c] upon the s ent ence , ” A pp. at20, i s nots uch a “ cl ear expr es s i on” pr ovi di ng “vi vi d i ns i ghti nt o the s ent enci ng court ’ s conce rns ” as t o r endert he pos s i bi l i tyof a r educt i on on r emand “s o r emot e and s pecul at i ve thatanydeci s i on on the m e r i t s ” w o u l d a m o u n tt o a n a d v i s o ryo p i n i o n . B l a c k b u rn , 4 6 1 F . 3 d a t2 6 2 & n . 2 . We6

w i l l therefore no tdis m i ss form oo tness. H ow ever, on reachi ng the m eri t s of A fuw aj om o’s appeal, w e con cl ud e t hat i tfai l s. W ith re s p e c t to th e v u ln e ra b le v ic tim e n h a n c e m e n t, A p p lic a tio n N o te 2 to U .S .S .G . § 3A 1. 1 defi nes a “vul ner abl e vi ct i m ” as a per s on “w ho i s unus ual l yvul ner abl e due t o age, phy s i cal orm ent al condi t i on, orw ho i s otherw i s e part i cul ar l ys us cept i bl e t o the cr i m i nal c o n d u c t.” T h e e n h a n c e m e n t m a yb e a p p lied w h e re : “( 1 ) th e v ictim w a s p a rticu lar ly s us cept i bl e orvul ner abl e t o t he cr i m i nal conduct ; ( 2) the def endantknew ors houl d have k n o w n o f

th is s u sc e p tib ili tyo r v u ln e ra b ili ty ; an d (3 ) th is v u ln e ra b ili tyo r su sc e p tib ili ty fac i l i t at ed the def

endant ’ s cr i m e i n s om e manner ; thati s , ther e w as a nexus betw een the vi ct i m ’ s vul ner abi l i tyand the cr i m e’ s ul t i m at e s ucce s s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Z at s , 298 F. 3d 182, 186 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew t he q u e stio n w h e th e r A f

u w a jo m o ’s v ictim w a s p a rticu lar lyv u ln e ra b le d e f e re n tially , as it i s

“ o n e in w h ich f

a c tu a l n u a n c e m a yc lo se lyg u id e th e leg a l d e c isio n , w ith leg a l re su lts dependi ng heavi l yupon an under s t andi ng of the s i gni fi canc e of c as e- s peci fi c det ai l s . ” I d. at 18 5 (cit ati o n an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A fuw aj om o’ s appea l cent er s on the thi r d pr ong of the above - s t at ed t es t , ar gui ng th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f a ile d to f in d th a t h is c o u s in ’s v u ln e ra b ility f a c ilita te d th e c ri m e . H e cl ai m s that“hi s cous i n’ s age, hear i ng l os s and s peec h i m pedi m enthad abs ol ut el yno bear i ng on [hi s ] abi l i tyt o comm i tthe cr i m e. I ndeed, perhaps the s i ngl e mostcr i t i cal fac t orthatfac i l i t at ed the off ens e w as the fa ctthat[hi s cous i n] l i ved i n N i ger i a, r ender i ng7

the fr aud more di ffi cul tforhi m and the author i t i es t o det ect . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at13- 14. T he governm entar gues thatthe vi ct i m w as vul ner abl e due t o hi s age a nd handi cap, both of w hi ch r ender ed i tdi ffi cul tforhi m t o al ertauthor i t i es of anypos s i bl e fr aud. T he D istric t C o u rt a g re e d , fin d in g th a t A f u w a jo m o “ to o k a d v a n tag e o f h is 1 4 -y e a r-o ld c o u sin a n d th a t th e re is , in f

a c t, a p ra c tic a l im p a c t o f h is c o n d u c t u p o n th e c o u s in .” A p p . a t 2 0 . “R egardl ess of w hetherthe d efen dan tdeli berat el yt arget ed the vi ct i m [] for [hi s] vul ner abi l i ty , thatvul ner abi l i tym us tt o s om e degr ee c ontr i but e t o the s ucce s s of the d e f e n d a n t’ s s c h e m e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . M o n o s tr a , 1 2 5 F .3 d 1 8 3 , 1 9 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). H er e, A fuw aj om o had as s um ed hi s cous i n’ s i dent i tyforfr audul entpurpos es s i nce 1987, atw hi ch t i m e hi s cous i n w as onl ythi r t een y ear s ol d. See U ni t ed St at es v. C ruz, 106 F. 3d 1134, 1137, 1139 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( fi ndi ng enhanc ementappl i ed w her e vi ct i m w as tw el ve y ear s ol d, even though vi ct i m w as onl ya pas s engeri n the ca r j acke d vehi cl e) . B oth the PSR and the s ent enci ng tr ans cr i pti ndi cat e thathi s cous i n’ s hear i ng pr obl em and spe ech im p e d im e n t h a v e m a d e it d if f icu lt fo r h im to e x p lain to a u th o rities th a t h e w a s n o t, i n f a c t, the per s on w ho had comm i t t ed cr i m es underhi s i dent i ty . T he D i s tr i ctC our tthus i nferr ed thatA fuw aj om o’ s cous i n w as a vul ner abl e vi ct i m , w hos e i dent i tythe def endanthad sto len p re su m a b lyb e c a u se h e w a s a m in o r c h ild w ith a p h y sic a l h a n d ica p liv in g in N i ger i a, al l of w hi ch i ncr eas ed the cha nces thatthe author i t i es w oul d notbe al ert ed of the i den t i tytheft. T his i s not cl earl yerr on eou s. Fi nal l y , A fuw aj om o’ s ar gum entthatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have us ed the8

r eas onabl e doubts t andar d t o det erm i ne w hetherthe enha ncementappl i ed fa i l s underour hol di ng i n U ni t ed St at es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 565 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en banc ) , thataft er B o o k e r, “th e rig h t to p ro o f b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t d o e s n o t ap p lyto f a c ts re lev a n t to enhanc ement s underan advi s oryG ui del i nes r egi m e. ” Thus, “[o] nce a j uryhas found a defe ndantgui l tyof ea ch el ementof an of fens e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , he has been cons t i tut i onal l ydepr i ved of hi s l i bertyand maybe s ent ence d up t o the maxi m um s ent ence a u th o riz e d u n d e r th e U n ited S tate s C o d e w ith o u t ad d iti o n a l f in d in g s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” Id . a t 5 6 1 . I V. F o r t h e a b o v e re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f s e n te n c e .

________________