1

0 7
- 1 9 7 0
- c r ( L ) , 0 7
- 3 1 2 7
- c r ( C ON) U SA v. O jei kere 1 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS 2 3 F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 4 5

____________________________________ 6 7 August Term, 2008 8 9 (Submitt ed: August 25, 2008 Decide d: October 7, 2008) 10 11 Docke t No. 07-1970 -c r (L ), 07-3127- cr ( CON) 12 13

___________________________________________________ 14 15 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, 16 17 Appellee , 18 19 -v.- 20 21 DANI ELA. OJEI KERE, AL SO KNOWN AS DAVI D R. J ORDAN, 22 23 De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. 24

___________________________________________________ 25 26 Be fore : NEWMAN, WI NTER, and CALAB RESI , Circ uit J ud ge s. 27

_________________________________________________ 28 29 30 Appea l from a judgment of convic tion and order of re stitut ion entere d in the United 31 States District Court for the Southern District of New Y ork (Koe ltl, J

.). We uphold the 32 conviction and hold that the r estitution order wa s proper , notwithstanding the vic tims’ own 3 3 al l ege d l y

d i s h o n es tm o t i v es , b ec au s e t h e v i ct i m s we re n o tac t i n g in pari materia with the 34 defe ndant. Acc ording ly , the judg ment and orde r ar e AF FIRMED. 35

_

________________________ 362 1 MARIA E. DOUVAS, Assistant United States Attorney , (Jonathan 2 S. Kolodner, of counsel) for Michae l J . Gar cia, United States 3 Attorney for the Souther

n District of Ne w York, for Appellee
. 4 5 6 DONNAR. NEWMAN, New Yor k, N.Y., for

De fe nd an t7 Appellant
. 8

_____________________________________ 9 CALAB RESI , Circuit Judge : 10 On May

2, 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York 11 (Koe ltl, J

.) ente red a

judgme nt of conviction ag ainst Daniel Oje ikere , findinghim guilty of one 12 count of wire fra

ud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of c onspiracy to commit the same. 18 13 U.S.C. § 371. The char g es stemmed fr om Ojeikere ’s role in a n “adva nce f ees” scam that tricke d 14 vic tim s into p ayingOj e ike re and his c on fe de rate s to re le a se larg e sums o f m on e y su pp os e dly 15 held in Nig eria . On J uly 3, 2007, followinga sente ncinghearing, the District Court sentence d 16 Ojeiker e to forty-three months in prison, t hree y ear s of supervise d rele ase, a nd restitution in the 1 7 am o un to f $ 6 7 9 , 1 3 2
. 8 2
. Onap p ea l , Oj ei k er e argu es th atth e d i s tri ctco urterre d b y ap p l yi n g a 18 two-leve l supervisory role sente ncingenhanc ement and by order ing r estitution t o the victims of 19 the sche me. 20 Section 3B1.1( c) of the Guidelines re quires a two le vel enha nceme nt “[i] f the de fenda nt 21 was a

n org anizer, lea der, ma

nag er, or supervisor in any

criminal ac tivity ” that involved fe wer 22 than five pe ople and wa s not otherwise e x tensive. The Commentar y clar ifies that “[t] o qualify 23 for a

n adjustment . . . the defe ndant must have be en the or g anizer, lea der, ma nag er, or supervisor 24 of one or

more other

participa nts,” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 2, and that a “pa rticipant” is any 25 “per son who is criminally responsible for

the commission of the offe nse, but nee d not have be enAt

tr ia l th e g ov e rnme nt a

rgue d th at O

je ike re ’s wi fe Ind on g e sit

wa s “ B arb ara

Smit h, ” but Mr s. 1 Ojeiker e wa s acquitted. F or the purpose s of the super visory role e nhance ment, howeve r, the g ov e rnme nt d id n ot n e e d to pr ov e that Ind on g e sit Oj e ike re wa s B arb ara

Smit h. It ne e de d o nly

to sh ow , b y a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e , th at Mr . O

je ike re su pe rv ise d Sm ith , who e ve r s he wa s. 3 1 c onvic te d. ” U. S.S. G. § 3 B 1. 1 c mt. 1. “ To qu a lif y fo r t he e nh anc e me nt, a

de fe nd ant n e e d o nly 2 have ma

nag ed or supe rvised one pa rticipant.” Un ite d S

tates v . B irk

in , 366 F.3d 95, 101 ( 2d Cir. 3 2004). F or the purpose s of the super visory role e nhance ment, the g overnme nt must prove 4 disputed fac ts by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. United States v. Vaughn , 430 F.3d 518, 525 5 (2d Cir. 2005). 6 The Gove rnment ar gued for a super visory role e nhance ment based on O jeikere ’s alleg ed 7 su pe rv isi on of “ B arb ara Smith, ” wh o p os e d a s h is s e c re tary wh e n h e a do pte d th e pe rs on a “ Da vid 1 8 J ordan” in order to e ffe ctuate the scheme . Ojeiker e cha lleng es the sente ncingenhanc ement on 9 tw o gro un ds : F ir st, that th e Go ve rnme nt f a ile d to pr ov e that “ B arb ara Smit h” wa s a c ri min a lly 10 re sp on sib le pa

rt ic ipa nt i n th e a dv anc e fe e s sc he me ; and se c on d, that th e g ov e rnme nt f a ile d to 11 prove that Ojeikere manag ed “B arba ra Smith.” Havingrevie wed the e vidence—including phone 12 calls made by

victims of the scheme to the supposed offic e of “ David Jordan,” which “ Ba rbar a 13 Smith” ans we re d— we a g re e wi th t

he Di str ic t Co ur

t th at “ the purp or

te d B arb ara

Smit h k no wi ng ly 14 further ed the f

raudule nt scheme but played a subsidiar y role to that of the de fenda nt. The 15 pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e sh ow s . . . that th e de fe nd ant m ana g e d a nd su pe rv ise d h is f

e ma le 16 criminal ac complice, a nd, there fore , a two-le vel enha nceme nt is warra

nted under

Section 17 3B1.1( c).” 18 Ojeiker e also c halleng es the re stitut ion order. “ We reviewa district cour t’s order of 19 restitution for abuse of discre tion.” United States v. Lucien , 347 F.3d 45, 52 ( 2d Cir. 2003). The4 1 Mandatory

Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“ MVRA”) r equire s restitution in criminal cases 2 wher e the of

fense is “an off

ense a g ainst proper

ty . . ., including a

ny offe nse committed by

fra ud 3 or dec eit,” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c) (1)( A)(ii), a nd wher e “a

n identifiable victim . . . has suff ere d a . 4 . . pecunia

ry loss.” Id. § 3 66 3A (c )( 1) (B ); see also Lucien , 3 47 F .3 d at 53 (“ Se c tio n 3 66 3A , in 5 contra st to § 3663, makes restitution mandatory for losses suff

ere d by victims of cer

tain crimes . . 6 . and dire cts that restitution orders be issued and enf orce d in acc ordanc e with § 3664.”) Under 7 the MVRA, re stitut ion must be ordere d “to ea ch victim in the full amount of ea ch victim’s losses 8 . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)( 1)(A)
. 9 Ojeiker e ac knowledg es that “the ‘victims’ identified by the cour t sustained losses and 10 thu s, a ll f

a ll w ith in t

he de fi nit ion

of vic tim s und e r a

pla in r e a din gof

the statut e .” He argue s, 11 ho we ve r, that th e vic tim s’ ha nd s are too dir

ty to c la im r e sti tut ion , s inc e the y a ll p art ic ipate d in 12 what they

thought wa s a fr audulent sche me to obtain money from Nig eria , and we re in e ffe ct co13 conspirator s. We have de nied re stitut ion where it “has the e ffe ct of tre atingcoconspirators as 14 ‘victims,’ and ther eby require s ‘re stitut ionary ’ pay ments to the perpe trators of the offe nse of conviction.” 15 United States v. Re ifler , 446 F.3d 65, 127 ( 2d Cir. 2006). But unlike the 16 coconspirators in Reifler , the victims here w ere no t involved in the offense of conv iction , which 17 wa s a

fr a ud ule nt s c he me to o bta in m on e y fr om t he m. Wh ate ve r i lle g a l sc he me the vic tim s 18 thought they

wer e involved in, it was not a sche me to lose their own money , which they ear ned 19 fairly

(as f ar a s we know) , lost, and now want re turned. 20 We h old

that r e sti tut ion

un de r t he MV RAmay

no t be de nie d s imp ly

be c a us e the vic tim 21 ha d gre e dy

or dis ho ne st m oti ve s, wh e re tho se int e nti on s w e re no t in pari materia with those of 22 the def

endant. Thus, a

would-be bur g lar who is robbe d by a potential ac complice be fore either of5 1 them commits the planned cr ime may be entitled to re stitut ion. On the other ha nd, restitution 2 would not be appr opriate if one burg lar we re to rob a nother of the proce eds of a heist they

have 3 just commit ted. See, e .g. , United States v. Martinez , 9 7 8 F
. S u p p . 1 4 4 2 , 1 4 5 3 ( D
. N
. M
. 1 9 9 7 ) ( “ It 4 is i ntu iti ve ly

ob vio us that Co ngre ss d id n ot i nte nd to h ave the fe de ra l ju dic iary take the le a d in 5 rew arding , throug h restitution orders, pe rsons robbed of monies they

had obtained by

unlawful 6 me ans , e sp e c ia lly

wh e re a s a

matte r o f p oli c y , f

e de ra l c ourt s g e ne ra lly

wo uld no t awa rd tho se 7 mon ie s w e re the y

so ught i n a

c ivi l a c tio n. Th is i s e sp e c ia lly tr ue wh e n th e pe rs on

wh o w ou ld 8 benef

it has violated fede ral law s.”) ( emphasis adde d and footnotes omitted). B eca use Ojeike re 9 has not demonstrate d that his victims l ost ill -g otten g ains, or that they wer e in p ar i m ate ria wi th 10 the sche me of whic h he wa s convicted, w e AF FIRM the restitution order.