1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Criminal No. 10-267 (ESH) 

 ) Civil No. 12-526 (ESH) 

OLADAYO OLADOKUN, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 Petitioner Oladayo Oladokun moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate, set aside, 

or correct his sentence. (First Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mar. 30, 2012 [ECF No. 47] 

(“Mot.”).) Petitioner claims that his counsel was deficient in failing to inform him that his 

sentence in this case would run consecutively with the sentence for his supervised release 

violation in Maryland, as well as failing to advise him of the mandatory two-year minimum 

incarceration required for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. (Mot. at 4.) He 

further argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for aggravated identity 

theft. (Mot. at 4.) For the reasons stated below, petitioner’s motion will be denied. 

BACKGROUND 

 On September 28, 2010, petitioner was indicted on one count of conspiracy (Count 1), six 

counts of bank fraud (Counts 2-7), five counts of mail fraud (Counts 8-12), and one count of 

aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Count 13). (See Indictment, Sept. 

28, 2010 [ECF No. 1].) He was arrested and charged with the thirteen-count indictment on 

October 27, 2010. (Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Oct. 23, 2012 

[ECF No. 61] (“Gov. Opp’n”) at 1-2.) Pursuant to a plea agreement negotiated by his retained 
2 

attorney, Richard Basile, petitioner pled guilty to Count 13 and the government moved to dismiss 

the remaining counts of the indictment. (Gov. Opp’n at 2; Plea Agreement, Feb. 3, 2011 [ECF 

No. 27].) Petitioner was sentenced to 24 months incarceration, 12 months of supervised release, 

a $100 special assessment, and restitution in the amount of $262,025.42. (See Judgment, Apr. 4, 

2011 [ECF No. 38]; Order Granting Motion to Correct Sentence, Apr. 7, 2011 [ECF No. 40].) 

 Prior to the events in this case, in 1997 petitioner was convicted of bank fraud and felon 

in possession of a firearm in United States v. Oladokun, No. 96-0285-AW (D. Md.). (Gov. 

Opp’n at 3.) He was sentenced to 125 months of imprisonment followed by five years of 

supervised release. (Id.) Petitioner was released from custody for that offense in 2006. (Id.) In 

August 2010, the district court in Maryland issued a warrant for petitioner’s arrest for violating 

the terms of his supervised release. (Id. at 4.) The district court in that case sentenced petitioner 

to 24 months of incarceration, to run consecutive to the term imposed in this case. (Id. at 4.) 

 Petitioner now brings this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, wherein he claims that he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to advise him that (1) 

his plea agreement would result in a sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for violation of 

supervised release in Maryland, and (2) that the only method of satisfying the mandatory twoyear minimum for aggravated identity theft was by incarceration. (Mot. at 4.) Petitioner further 

asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated identity theft. 

(Id.) 

ANALYSIS 

A. Section 2255 Motion 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner sentenced in federal court may move to vacate, set 

aside, or correct his sentence if the sentence was imposed “in violation of the Constitution or 
3 

laws of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). The petitioner bears the burden of proving that 

violation by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Dodd, 828 F. Supp. 2d 39, 41 

(D.D.C. 2011). This Court must grant an evidentiary hearing on a prisoner’s claims “[u]nless the 

motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that prisoner is entitled to no 

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). “Even if the files and records of the case do not clearly rebut the 

allegations of the prisoner, no hearing is required where his claims are ‘vague, conclusory, or 

palpably incredible.’” United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011, 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (quoting 

Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495 (1962)). 

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must make a twopart showing: “[f]irst, the [petitioner] must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This 

requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 

‘counsel’ guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the [petitioner] must show that the 

deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 

(1984). In the case of a guilty plea, in order to show prejudice, the petitioner must demonstrate 

that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the petitioner would have pled 

not guilty and insisted on going to trial. United States v. Sutton, 803 F. Supp. 2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 

2011) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)).

1. Consecutive Sentences 

 Petitioner first alleges that counsel failed to advise him that the sentence in this case 

would run consecutively to the sentence for his supervised release violation in Maryland, and in 

fact suggested that the plea deal in this case would “roll” all of the sentences into one. (Mot. at 

4; Petitioner’s Sworn Affidavit, Feb. 21, 2012 [ECF No. 49] (“Aff.”) at 3.) 
4 

 This allegation is contradicted by the record. As an initial matter, this Court sentenced 

petitioner over a month before he received his sentence in Maryland, and the two sentences were 

given independently of one another. The plea agreement signed by petitioner clearly stated that 

petitioner would be “sentenced on the violation of supervised release by the appropriate judge in 

the District of Maryland.” (Plea Agreement at 1.) Thus, petitioner’s counsel stated in his 

declaration that he “had no idea what sentence of incarceration, if any,” the judge in Maryland 

would impose, and did not give petitioner any reason to believe otherwise. (Basile Decl. ¶ 5.) 

 Additionally, regardless of what sentence the District of Maryland chose to impose for 

petitioner’s supervised release violation, it was clear that the sentence would run consecutively to 

the one imposed by this Court. For example, at a status conference held on January 31, 2011—in 

petitioner’s presence—petitioner’s counsel confirmed the Court’s understanding that petitioner’s 

sentence for his supervised release violation in the District of Maryland would be “on top of” 

whatever sentence was imposed by this Court. (January 31, 2011 Status Conference (“1/31/11 

Tr.”) at 28.) This was reiterated in the plea agreement signed by petitioner, which stated that he 

understood that 18 U.S.C. § 1028A carries a “mandatory minimum of two years imprisonment 

consecutive to any time.” (Plea Agreement at 1 (emphasis added).) Thus, petitioner was clearly 

informed that the two sentences would run consecutively, and there was nothing deficient about 

his counsel’s performance. 

 This evidence also establishes that petitioner was not prejudiced by his counsel’s advice. 

Petitioner “cannot argue that he would have proceeded to trial had he known [that the sentences 

would run consecutively] because the record reflects that he was made aware of the [consecutive 

nature of the sentences] by his attorney (and also the Court), yet he pleaded guilty in any event.” 

Sutton, 803 F. Supp. 2d at 5. 
5 

 Regardless, even if counsel’s performance had been deficient, petitioner has not 

established that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s advice because he has not made an adequate 

showing that he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial. Petitioner stated 

that he “would rather have gone to trial instead of ending up with the same sentence from the 

outset.” (Aff. at 4.) This position rests on the faulty premise that petitioner would have received 

the same sentence if he had gone to trial and been found guilty. To the contrary, however, 

petitioner could have been tried on all 13 counts, not just the aggravated identity theft count to 

which he pled guilty. “To measure the reasonable probability that [petitioner] would have 

proceeded to trial, all counts that [he] would have faced must be considered and not just the 

counts to which [he] pled guilty.” United States v. Pollard, 602 F. Supp. 2d 165, 170 (D.D.C. 

2009) (citing In re Sealed Case, 488 F.3d 1011, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). Here, the aggravated 

identity theft count would have carried a 2-year mandatory consecutive sentence on top of a 

sentence of 46-57 months on the remaining twelve counts. (Gov. Opp’n at 22; 1/31/11 Tr. at 

27.) 

 Additionally, petitioner “has not proffered even a hint of any defense, much less a 

suggestion that he could have succeeded had he gone to trial.” United States v. Farley, 72 F.3d 

158, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1995). To the contrary, at least with respect to the aggravated identity theft 

count, he signed a confession of guilt and stated on the record that he “did commit it” and 

acknowledged, “[y]es, Your Honor, I’m guilty.” (Plea Hearing, Feb. 3, 2011 (“Plea Tr.”) at 7, 

21.) Petitioner has not demonstrated that—in light of this potentially longer sentence and the 

strength of the government’s case—he would not have accepted a guilty plea and would instead 

have proceeded to trial. 
6 

 Because petitioner has established neither a deficiency in his counsel’s assistance nor any 

prejudice suffered therefrom, he has not established ineffective assistance of counsel on this 

basis. 

2. Mandatory Incarceration 

 Petitioner’s second ineffective assistance of counsel claim fares no better. Petitioner 

asserts that counsel failed to advise him that the only way to satisfy the two-year statutory 

mandatory minimum prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A was by incarceration. (Mot. at 

4.) However, like petitioner’s first claim, this allegation is belied by the record. 

 The plea agreement, which petitioner signed, clearly stated that the offense to which he 

was pleading guilty carried a “mandatory minimum of two years imprisonment.” (Plea 

Agreement at 1 (emphasis added).) Additionally, numerous exchanges between petitioner, 

counsel, and the Court at the plea hearing expressly addressed the mandatory minimum. For 

example, the Court stated that “[i]t is a mandatory minimum of two years imprisonment” (Plea 

Tr. at 15), and clarified that “[i]t is not a question of guidelines. It is two years. And two years 

is it.” (Plea Tr. at 15.) Later, after petitioner conferred with his counsel, the following exchange 

occurred: 

[COUNSEL]: Your Honor, one thing Mr. Oladokun wanted the assurance from 

the Court on, which we’ve already discussed is that, as he understands it, the 

Court must impose a mandatory minimum of two years. And the Court cannot 

exceed the two years. He understands that he is getting two years, no more, no 

less. 

 THE COURT: Correct, that’s it. But I can’t go less. 

(Plea Tr. at 18-19 (emphasis added).) And finally, just before petitioner submitted his plea, the 

Court confirmed that understanding one last time: 

THE COURT: [W]e all know, I have to give you at least two years. Do you 

understand that? 
7 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

(Plea Tr. at 21.) These facts simply do not support petitioner’s contention that he was unaware 

he would be required to serve two years of imprisonment, and there is therefore no indication 

that his counsel’s advice was deficient. 

 Furthermore, for the same reasons discussed with respect to petitioner’s first ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim, there is no evidence that petitioner was prejudiced in any way by 

this alleged deficiency. Because the record “conclusively shows” that petitioner is entitled to no 

relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b), the Court need not grant an evidentiary hearing on this claim. 

3. Other Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims 

 Though not expressly listed among his claims, petitioner appears to allege a number of 

other deficiencies in his brief motion. For example, he states that counsel failed to “properly 

investigate the case,” failed to “review discovery together with client conferences and explore 

the depth of the case,” and failed to “inform Mr. Oladokun of the penalties he was facing by 

accepting the government’s plea offer, in contrast to going to trial.” (Mot. at 5-6.) 

 As an initial matter, “vague” and “conclusory” allegations of this kind cannot support a 

finding that counsel’s performance fell below an “objective standard of reasonableness.” See 

United States v. James, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2010) (rejecting ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim because defendant’s allegations were “vague, conclusory, and palpably 

incredible”) (quoting Pollard, 959 F.2d at 1031); United States v. Goss, 646 F. Supp. 2d 137, 

143-44 (D.D.C. 2009) (defendant’s “vague allegation” of ineffective assistance of counsel did 

not provide information from which the court could find either deficiency or prejudice); United 

States v. Thomas, 541 F. Supp. 2d 18, 23 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Summary disposition may also be 

appropriate where the defendant has failed to present any affidavits or other evidentiary support 
8 

for the naked assertions contained in his motion.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the 

lack of evidentiary or factual support for these allegations is alone sufficient to defeat these 

claims. 

 Additionally, petitioner’s assertions are contradicted by the record in this case. At his 

plea colloquy, petitioner expressly disclaimed any such deficiencies in his counsel’s 

representation: 

THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the services of your lawyer here? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

THE COURT: Have you had enough time to discuss with him your decision to 

plead guilty? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

THE COURT: As far as you know, has he adequately investigated the facts in 

this case? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

(Plea Tr. at 5-6.) It is well established that “[t]he representations of the defendant at a plea 

hearing . . . ‘constitute a formidable barrier in any subsequent collateral proceeding’ because the 

defendant’s ‘declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.’” United States v. 

Zaia, 751 F. Supp. 2d 132, 139 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Farley, 72 F.2d at 164-65). Petitioner 

has offered no facts to contradict his earlier admissions. Thus, this Court declines to find that he 

has demonstrated any deficiency in his counsel’s assistance. Moreover, as discussed above, 

there is no evidence whatsoever that petitioner was in fact prejudiced by any deficiency that may 

have occurred. See supra Section B.1. 
9 

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

 Petitioner claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for 

aggravated identity theft because it did not show that he knew the means of identification at issue 

belonged to another person. (Mot. at 4.) 

 As an initial matter, it is unclear whether petitioner raises this issue as an independent 

claim or as a further basis for his argument that his counsel was ineffective. Regardless, neither 

argument is persuasive. 

 As an independent basis for relief, this claim fails because it is contrary to both the record 

and petitioner’s own earlier admissions. In his motion, petitioner offers no details whatsoever to 

explain why this element of the offense was not supported by the evidence. However, in his 

affidavit, he seems to suggest that because he had nothing on his person at the time he was 

arrested, the “government [cannot] prove the nexus of the alleged crime, that the petitioner 

presented himself as someone else.” (Aff. at 2.) However, at the January 31, 2011 status 

conference, the government stated that it was prepared to call seven victims to testify that the 

bank records used by the defendant contained their actual social security numbers and dates of 

birth, and that they did not authorize the defendant to use that information. (1/31/11 Tr. at 13-14, 

21.) Additionally, the Statement of the Offense, which petitioner admitted was accurate, detailed 

that petitioner obtained the names and identifying information of actual bank and credit card 

account holders and pretended to be those individuals in order to access their accounts. 

(Statement of Facts, Feb. 3, 2011 [ECF No. 28] at 1-2; Plea Tr. at 7.) In short, petitioner “made 

an informed and knowing plea that his conduct violated [18 U.S.C. § 1028A],” and it is “clear 

that his conduct did in fact violate that provision.” United States v. Pollard, 946 F. Supp. 48, 50 

(D.D.C. 1996). Thus, the Court will not set aside petitioner’s plea on this ground. 
10 

 To the extent that petitioner attempts to raise an additional ineffective assistance of 

counsel claim on this basis, that claim is equally unfounded for much the same reason. Namely, 

in light of the overwhelming evidence against him, petitioner simply cannot show that he was 

prejudiced in any way by his counsel’s advice to accept the guilty plea. See also supra Section 

B.1. 

D. Voluntariness of the Plea 

 Finally, petitioner appears to assert that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily 

entered into. In his motion, he states that at the time of the plea he was uninformed as to the true 

nature of the charges against him. (Mot. at 6.) Then, in his affidavit, he states that his counsel 

came to the jail to “coerce” him into accepting the plea deal and did not properly explain it to 

him. (Aff. at 3-4.) 

 Like many of petitioner’s claims, this allegation is fatally lacking in details; petitioner 

does not in any way explain how his counsel attempted to coerce him into accepting the plea. 

Moreover, it is contradicted by petitioner’s own statements at the plea colloquy. There, the 

following exchange occurred: 

THE COURT: So has anybody made any representations other than those here in 

the paper or in open court to you in order to get you to plead guilty? 

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Has anyone given—we all know, I have to give you at least two 

years. Do you understand that? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Has anybody told you anything different than that about the 

Court’s sentence? 

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor. 
11 

THE COURT: Has anyone forced or coerced you in any way to enter into a plea 

agreement? 

THE DEFENDANT: No. 

THE COURT: Are you doing it of your own free will because you are guilty? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I’m guilty. 

(Plea Tr. at 20-21.) Like petitioner’s statements regarding his satisfaction with his counsel’s 

advice, petitioner’s representations as to the “knowing and voluntary nature of his plea . . . may 

‘constitute a formidable barrier’ to his later refutations.” Moore v. United States, 2012 WL 

3195127, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2012) (quoting United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924, 933 (D.C. 

Cir. 1998)). Considering the vague and conclusory nature of petitioner’s allegations that his plea 

was involuntarily given, this Court finds that he has not overcome the “formidable barrier” of his 

earlier admissions, and that he is not entitled to relief on this ground. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will be denied. A 

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

 /s/ 

 ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE 

 United States District Judge 

DATE: November 29, 2012