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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 29 86

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

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ade to ku nb o Ol ub un m i Ad ejum o, al so kn own as M al ik , als o k no wn as D, als o

kn own as To ds , als o k no wn as Tok un bo , als o k no wn as T

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

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

No. 1 2- 30 09

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

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ju li an Okea y ai nn eh , als o k no wn as Ju li us Inn eh , als o k no wn as Ju li an Nos a In ne h,

al so kn own as J .J., al so kn own as J ul ia n Ok eaya-Inn eh

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 30 10

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

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Olu gb en ga Tem id ag o Ad en ira n, al so kn own as De nn is Lok , als o k no wn as Day o Olu gb eg a, al so kn own as An dr e T. And ei ran , als o k no wn as And en ira n T. Day o, al so kn own as Ol uwa fem i Ol arewa ju Osi bo du , als o k no wn as Day o, al so kn own as Dre, al so kn own as Ol ug be ng a Tem id ay o Ad en ira n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

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 - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 19 , 20 13

Fil ed : No ve m

be r 25 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

On Mar ch 8, 20 11

, Ade to ku nb o Ade ju mo , Ju li an Oke ay ai nn eh

, Olu gb en ga

Ade ni ran an d ni ne ot he rs were ch arg ed in a 57 -co un t in di ct m en t with co ns pi racy to

co m m it ba nk frau d, as well as su bs ta nt iv e co un ts of ba nk frau d, m ai l- an d wire frau d,

id en ti ty t h e f

t

, m on ey la un de rin g, an d tra ffi ck in g in fal se au th en ti cat io n feat ur es

.

-2

-Oke ay ai nn eh an d Ade ni ran , al on g wit h two ot he r s , pr oc eed ed to tri al

. Afte r an 1

1 1- da y tri al

, Oke ay ai nn eh was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to co m m it ba nk frau d an d

25 su bs ta nt iv e frau d- rel at ed co un ts

. He was acq ui tt ed on on e co un t of ai di ng an d

ab et ti ng ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft

. Ade ni ran was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to co m m it

ba nk frau d an d 8 su bs ta nt iv e frau d- rel at ed co un ts

. A d e ju mo pl ead ed 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

. Oke ay ai nn eh an d

Ade ni ran ap pe al t he ir co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces

. Ade jum o ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce.

Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd an d of al l is su es rai se d on ap pe al

, we affi rm in pa rt,

rev ers e in pa rt, a nd rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

“ W e pr es en t th e fac t s in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic ts

, dr awin g al l

reas on ab l e i n f

e r e nc es fro m th e ev id en ce th at su pp or t th e jury’ s ve rd ic ts .” Uni te d

St at es v. Ram on -Ro dr ig ue z, 49 2 F.3 d 93 0, 93 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). In 20 09

, va rio us

fed eral an d st at e ag en ci es th at ha d be en in de pe nd en tl y in ve st ig at in g f r au d in th e

Mi nn eap ol is m et ro area joi ne d fo rces in a m as si ve cri m in al in ve st ig at io n ni ck na m ed

Ope rat io n St arb ur st

. The in ve st ig at io n le d to th e in di ct men t o f m or e th an fo rty

pe op le on ch arg es of ba nk frau d an d ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft

, m os t of who m res id ed

in Mi nn es ot a. Part ic ip an ts in th e sc he m e us ed st ol en id en ti ty info rm at io n t o crea te

co un te rfei t id en ti fic at io ns fo r us e in co m m it ti ng ba nk frau d. The ba nk frau d to ok two

m ai n fo rm s. In on e fo rm , co un te rfei t id en ti fic at io n do cu m en ts were us ed to op en

acco un ts at va rio us fed eral ly in su red ba nk s, whi ch were th en us ed as co nd ui ts fo r

cas hi ng st ol en or co un te rfei t ch eck s. The bu lk of th es e pr oc e e ds wen t to

Oke ay ai nn eh an d co -co ns pi rat or Oli di po Co ke r. In it s ot he r fo rm , th e b a n k f rau d 2

By t h e ti m e of tri al

, a 41 -co un t th ird su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t ha d be en 1

ret ur ne d. At tri al

, Nan a Ose i-Tu tu an d Fat a Leet a Sarn or Dav id were acq ui tt ed of al l

ch arg es

.

Co ke r was in di ct ed bu t was a fu gi ti ve at t he ti m e o f tr ia l. 2

-3

-in vo lv ed st ol e n c r e d i t c a rd s th at were us ed to pu rch as e gi ft card s or ob ta in cas h

ad va nc es

.

On Ja nu ary 7, 20 10

, Ade ni ran cam e to th e at te nt io n of Offi cer Jo el Mo or e, an

Edi na , Mi nn es ot a, po li ce of fic er who was pa tro ll in g th e pa rk in g lo t of So ut hd al e

Cen te r in Edi na

. Offi cer Mo or e te st ifi ed at tri al he ob se rv ed an id li ng pa rk ed ve hi cl e

wit h two m en in si de

. One o f t h e men w a s Co ke r. A th ird m an en te red an d th en

qu ic kl y ex i te d th e ve hi cl e; he was su bs eq ue nt ly id en ti fie d as Ade ni ran

. Afte r

co nt act in g m al l se cu rit y , O f fic er Mo or e de te rm in ed th at Ade ni ran ha d pu rch as ed

th ree $5 00 gi ft card s fro m th e So ut hd al e Cen te r cu st om er-s erv ic e ki os k us in g a st ol en

cred it card

. Ade ni ran was arre st ed

. The ve hi cl e an d th e ot he r m en were se arch ed

, bu t

Co ke r an d th e ot he r m an were al lo wed to le av e. The st ol en cred it card Ade ni ran ha d

us ed was n ot reco ve red fro m hi m

.

At th e ti m e of hi s arre st

, Ade ni ran ha d id en ti fic at io n in fo rm at io n fo r a t l eas t

th ree ad di ti on al pe op le on hi s pe rs o n, in cl ud in g da te s of bi rth

, so ci al se cu rit y

nu m be rs , ad dr es se s, an d credit- card nu m be rs

. W hi le in cu st od y , Ade ni ran swa ll owe d

a se co nd pi ece of pa pe r co nt ai ni ng vi ct im in fo rm at io n. Fro m jail

, Ade ni ran cal le d

Co ke r, Ade

jum o, an d ot he rs

. The ph on e cal l s w ere reco rd ed

. In th em , he ta lk ed

ab ou t th e frau d he ha d co m m it te d an d hi s de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce; he al so at te m pt ed

to fin d s om eo ne to ten de r ba il

.

Afte r Ade ni ran ’s arre st

, in ve st ig at or s d e t erm in ed he ha d co m m it te d si m il ar

frau ds aro un d th e s a me t i m e. The y le arn ed th at in Nov em be r an d Decem

be r 20 09

, Ade ni ran ha d ta ke n ou t cas h ad va nc es at U.S. Ban k an d TCF Ban k an d pu rch as ed gi ft

card s at a c u s to m er-s erv ic e bo ot h at th e Mal l of Am eri ca, each ti m e us in g a st ol en

cred it card

. On May 2 0, 20 10 , Ad en ira n pl ead ed gu il ty i n Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t t o

id en ti ty the ft f

or us in g t he fak e cre di t ca rd at S ou th da le Cen te r.

-4

-On Nov em be r 3, 20 10

, Ang el a Grig sb y was arre st ed in Eau Cl ai re, W is co ns in

,

w h e n s h e tri ed to wit hd raw m on ey fro m a frau du le nt ba nk acco un t sh e ha d op en e d

at Co ke r’s d i r e c ti on

. Grig sb y pr ov id ed in ve st ig at or s in fo rm at io n th at al lo wed la w

en fo rcem en t to ob ta in a se arch warra nt fo r a st or ag e lo ck er in Cal ifo rn ia Oke ay ai nn eh

ha d re nt ed un de r a fal se na m e si nc e 2 00 6.

On Decem

be r 17

, 20 10

, la w en fo rcem en t ex ecu te d th e se arch w a r r a nt fo r

O k e a yain ne h’s st or ag e lo ck er. The lo ck er co nt ai ne d st ol en an d co un te rfei t ch e c k s

wit h a face va lu e o f o ve r $1 8 m il li on

. It al so co nt ai ne d bl an k ch eck st oc k,

ph ot og rap hs of co -co ns pi rat or s— in cl ud i n g Ade ni ran —an d do cu m en ts rel at ed to

cred it -car d frau d ag ai ns t Ch as e B a n k

. Th e l oc ke r al so he ld 50 0 cred it card s in th e

na m es of va rio us pe op le an d eq ui pm en t fo r m an uf act ur in g frau du le nt cred it card s.

In to ta l, ag en ts fo un d fo rm s of id en ti fic at io n fo r 87 00 di ffer en t pe op le in th e st or ag e

lo ck er. Oke ay ai nn eh arri ve d d ur in g th e ex ecu ti on of th e se arch warra nt . Alth ou gh

he in it ia ll y to ld la w en fo rcem en t th e lo ck er was no t hi s, he ha d th e ke y to th e lo ck er

in hi s car. Oke ay ai nn eh was arre st ed

. Su bs eq ue nt ly su bp oe na ed reco rd s an d se cu rit y

vi de o ta pe s sh owe d th at Oke ay ai nn eh acce ss ed th e st or ag e lo ck er on a da il y ba si s,

of te n s ev eral ti m es a da y

.

Fo ll owi ng hi s arre st

, Oke ay ai nn eh ga ve a pr of fer st at em en t to la w en fo rcem en t

du rin g whi ch he m ad e se ve ral ad m is si on s. Des pi te gi vi ng th e pr of fer, Oke ay ai nn eh

ul ti m at el y de ci de d to go to tri al

. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t ag r eed wit h th e

go ve rn m en t th at Oke ay ai nn eh ha d pr ov id ed fal se in fo rm at io n du rin g hi s pr of fer, hi s

st at em en ts were ad m it te d a s ev id en ce at tri al ag ai ns t h im

.

Law en fo rcem en t of

fic ers fro m va rio us st at e an d fed eral ag en ci es an d in te rn al

frau d in ve st ig at o r s f

r o m th e de frau de d fin an ci al in st it ut io ns te st ifi ed at tri al

. Co -co ns pi rat or s who ha d pl ead ed gu il ty t es ti fie d a b o u t th ei r res pe ct iv e ro le s in th e

co ns pi racy as wel l as th e ro le s o f Oke ay ai nn eh , Cok er, Ad en ira n, an d Ad ejum o.

-5

-Oke ay ai nn eh an d Ad en ira n a pp eal th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f th ei r m ot io ns

to di sm is s th e th ird su p e rs ed in g in di ct m en t on Sp eed y Tria l Act gr ou nd s an d th ei r

m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on Co un t 1 of th e th ird su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t— th e ba nk -fra ud co ns pi racy co un t. Oke ay ai n n eh ap pe al s th e di st ric t

co ur t’s deci si on to ad m it in to ev id en ce the go ve rn m en t’s “ co ns pi racy ch art ” an d it s

de ci si on to al lo w th e go ve rn m en t to in tro du ce st at em en ts he m ad e du rin g hi s pr of fer.

All th ree de fen da nt s rai se is su es rel at ed to se nt en ci ng

. W e ad dr es s each de fen da nt ’s

arg um en ts in tu rn

.

II . Disc us si on

A. Speedy Tri al Act

On Sep te m

be r 29

, 20 11

, Oke ay ai nn eh an d Ade ni ran ap pe ared be fo re th e co ur t

to di sc us s t h e s t a t u s o f th e cas e an d to sc he du le a tri al da te

. The co ur t pr op os ed a 3

Feb ru ary 7

, 2 0 1 2

, tri al da te

. Bo th Oke ay ai nn eh an d Ade ni ran waiv ed th ei r

sp eed y -tr ia l rig ht s on th e reco rd

. The di st ric t co ur t se t th e tri al fo r Feb ru ary 7, 20 12

, bu t fai le d to gi ve it s reas on s ei th er or al ly or in writ in g why th e en ds of jus ti ce wou ld

be ser ve d b y

th e co nt in ua nc e.

In Ja nu ary 20 12

, Oke ay ai nn eh an d Ade ni ran each fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s th e

th ird su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 31 62 (a)( 2)

, arg ui ng th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t st at e ad eq ua te ly on th e reco rd

, whe n co nt in ui ng th e tri al

, it s reas on s why

a co nt in ua nc e o ut weig he d t he be st in te res ts of t he m an d t he pu bl ic in a sp eed y tri al

pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 31 6 1( h) (7 )(A). In it s res po ns e to th ei r m ot io ns , th e

go ve rn m en t ur ge d th e di st ric t co ur t to pu t it s fin di ng s on th e reco rd pr io r to ru li ng on

th e m ot io ns

. On Ja nu ary 24

, 20 12

, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed an or de r ex pl ai ni ng th at

,

Fo ur other rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s, in cl ud in g O se i- T utu an d Sa rn or -D av id, w er e 3

al so in att en da nc e.

-6

-be cau se of th e un us ua l co m pl ex it y of th e cas e, “ th e en ds o f ju st ic e se rv ed by th e

gr an ti ng of th e co nt in ua nc es in th is m at te r ou twei gh th e be st in te res t of th e pu bl ic an d

Defen da nt s in a sp eed y tri al .” The di st ric t co ur t th en ex cl ud ed th e pe rio d fro m Sep te m be r 2 9

, 2 0 1 1

, th ro ug h Feb ru ary 7, 20 12

, fro m th e Sp eed y Tria l Act

co m pu ta ti on s.

Late r in th e da y on Ja nu ary 24

, 20 12

, a m ag is tra te jud ge he ld a he ari ng on th e

de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns

. Rel y in g on th e t r a n sc rip t fro m th e Sep te m be r 29 st at us

co nf eren ce, th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d de nyin g th e mo t i on s to di sm is s,

fin di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t “ im pl ic it ly” m ad e th e ne ces sa ry fin di ng s d ur in g th e

he ari ng

. On Feb ru ary 1

, 2 01 2, th e di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e reco m m en da ti on an d

de ni ed th e m ot io ns

.

“Th e [Sp eed y Tria l] Act req ui res th at th e tri al be gi n wit hi n 70 da y s aft er a

de fen da nt is ch arg ed or m ak es an in it ia l ap pe aran ce un le ss th e ru nn in g of th e ti m e is

st op pe d fo r reas on s se t ou t in th e st at ut e.” Uni te d St at es v. Luc as , 49 9 F.3 d 76 9, 78 2

(8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (en ba nc ). Am on g th e s t a t u t o r i l y ap pr ov ed reas on s fo r da y s to be

ex cl uded fro m th e sp eed y -tr ia l cal cu la ti on is an “ en ds -o f-jus ti ce” co nt in ua nc e: A tri al

m ay be de la y ed if a di st ric t co ur t fin ds th e en ds of jus ti ce so req ui re an d “ se ts fo rth

, in th e reco rd of th e cas e, ei th er o r a l l y o r i n writ in g, it s reas on s fo r fin di ng th at th e

en ds of jus ti ce se rv ed by th e gr an ti ng of su ch co nt in ua nc e ou twei gh th e be st in te res ts

of th e pu bl ic an d th e de fen da nt in a sp eed y tri al .” 18 U.S.C. § 31 61 (h )(7 )(A). Onc e

th os e da y s are ex cl ud ed

, ho we v e r , “i f th e to ta l nu m be r of no n- ex cl ud ab le da y s

ex ceed s se ve nt y , th en th e di st ric t co ur t m us t d i sm is s th e in di ct m en t up on th e

de fen da nt ’s m ot io n.” Uni te d Stat es v. Vill arre al

, 70 7 F.3 d 94 2, 95 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )

(q uo ta ti on om it te d )

. It is th e de fen da nt ’s bu rd en to sh ow th e m ot io n sh ou ld be

gr an te d. Id

. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s [fo r pu rp os es of t h e S pe ed y

Tria l Act] fo r cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. On ap pe al

, ne it he r Oke ay ai nn eh no r Ade ni ran co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t rel ie d

o n im pr op er fact or s in gr an ti ng th e m ot io n to co nt in ue

. In st ead

, th ey a r g u e t h e

di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng th e co nt in ua nc e be cau se it di d no t is su e it s fin di ng s

-7

-un ti l af

te r th ey fil ed th ei r m ot io ns to di sm is s. “ Alt ho ug h th e Act is cl ear th at th e

fin di ng s m

us t be m ad e, if on ly in th e jud ge ’s m in d, befo re gran ti ng th e co nt in ua nc e

. . . th e Act is am

bi gu ou s on pr eci se ly whe n th os e fin di ng s m us t be ‘se[t ] fo rth

, in th e

reco rd of th e cas e.’” Zed ne r v. Uni te d St at es , 54 7 U.S. 48 9, 50 6– 07 (2 00 6) (q uo ti ng

18 U.S.C. § 31 61 (h )(8 )(A)). “ [A]t th e ve ry le as t th e Act im pl ie s th at th os e fin di ng s

m us t be pu t on th e reco rd b y th e ti m e a di st ric t co ur t ru le s on a de fen da nt ’s m ot io n

to di sm is s u nd er § 31 62 (a)( 2) .” Id

. at 50 7.

Oke ay ai nn eh an d Aden ira n con ced e we ha ve pre vi ou sl y he ld th at th e di st ric t

co ur t is no t req ui red to m ak e a co nt em p o r a n e o u s reco rd of it s en ds -o f-jus ti ce

fin di ng s. See Uni te d St at es v. Cl iff or d, 66 4 F.2 d 10 90

, 10 95 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ) (“ W hi le

a co ur t ge ne ral ly sh ou ld m ak e th e fin di ng s req ui red by se ct io n 31 61 (h )(8 )(A)[ ] at th e 4

ti m e it gr an ts th e co nt in ua nc e, th e Sp eed y Tr ia l Act do es no t req ui re th e co ur t to

m ak e a co nt em

po ran eo us reco rd .”); se e al so Uni te d St at e s v. St ack ho us e, 18 3 F.3 d

90 0, 90 1 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 99 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“ Co nt em po ran ei ty is no t req ui red

. . . an d a

su bs eq ue nt art ic ul at io n su ffi ces .”). In th is cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed it s fin di ng s

ap pr ox im at el y on e week be fo re ru li ng on th e m ot io ns to di sm is s. Oke ay ai nn eh an d

Ade ni ran po in t to no th in g in th e reco rd to su gg es t th at th e rea s o n s se t fo rth in th e

di st ric t co ur t’s Ja nu ary 24 Ord er were no t in fact th e reas on s it or ig in al ly co ns id ered

in ex cl ud in g th e ti m e fro m Sep te m be r 29

, 20 11

, to Feb ru ary 7, 20 12

. W hi le we ag ree

“ [t]he be st pra ct ic e, of co ur se , is for a di st ric t co ur t t o p ut it s fi nd in gs on th e rec or d

at o r n e a r th e ti m e whe n it gr an ts th e co nt in ua nc e,” Zed ne r, 54 7 U.S. at 50 7 n.7

,

un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, th e fact or s rel ie d up on by th e di st ric t co ur t in

m ak in g it s en ds -o f-jus ti ce de te rm in at io n were pr op er. W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ni al of t he de fen da nt s’ m ot io ns to di sm is s t he th ird su pe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t.

Thi s i s n ow co di fie d a t 1 8 U.S.C. § 31 61 (h )(7 )(A). 4

-8

-B. Ju li an Ok ea ya in neh

1. Mo tio n fo r J udg m ent o f Acqui tta l

Oke ay ai nn eh ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al on Co un t 1, co n s p i r a c y t o co m m it ba nk frau d. W e rev ie w de no vo th e

de ni al of a m ot io n for judg m en t of acq ui tt al

, an d ou r st an da rd of rev ie w is th e sa m e

st an da rd we ap pl y to a su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce ch al le ng e. Uni te d St at es v. Co ok

, 60 3 F.3 d 43 4, 43 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). On rev ie w, “ we wil l affi rm if th e reco rd

, vi ewed

m os t fav or ab ly to th e go ve rn m en t, co nt ai ns su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t, whi ch m ean s ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th e el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d St at es v. Lop ez, 44 3 F.3 d 10 26

, 10 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (en

ba nc ). “ To co nv ic t a de fen da nt of co ns pi racy, th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e th at th ere

was an ag reem en t to ach ie ve an il le ga l pu rp os e, th at th e de fen da nt k n e w o f th e

ag reem en t, an d th at th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly be cam e pa rt of th at ag reem en t.” Uni te d

St at es v. Mo rri s, 7 23 F.3d 93 4, 9 39 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Oke ay ai nn eh as se rts th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on

fo r co ns pi racy to co m

m it ba nk frau d be cau se th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to sh ow he kn ew

ab ou t th e co ns pi racy or vo lu nt ari ly an d in te nt io na ll y joi ne d it

. The ev id en ce ag ai ns t

Oke ay ai nn eh in cl ud ed th e te st im on y of Ang el a Grig sb y , Bern ard Tho m as , an d Ja m ie

Br yn t e n s e n who al l te st ifi ed th at Co ke r recr ui te d th em in May 20 10 to fly to

Cal ifo rn ia to op en frau du le nt ba nk a c c o u n t s, whi ch th ey di d un de r th e di rect io n of

Oke ay ai nn eh

. W he n th e th ree arri ve d in Cal ifo rn ia

, Oke ay ai nn eh pi ck ed th em up at

th e ai rp or t an d ga ve th e m t he ir co un te rfei t id en ti fic at io n card s, as well as pe rs on al

in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e id en ti ti es th ey were to as su m e an d ad di ti on al do cu m en ts th ey

ne ed ed to op en bu si ne ss acco un ts

. Oke ay ai nn eh to ok th em to a ho te l an d in st ru ct ed

th em to m em or iz e th e in fo rm at io n he ha d p r o v i de d. Alt ho ug h Tho m as was un ab le

to op en an acco un t wit h hi s do cu m en ta ti on , Grig sb y an d Br y nt en se n bo th op en ed

acco un ts an d wit hd rew m on ey fro m th em ; th ey ga ve th e m on ey to Oke ay ai nn eh

.

-9

-B e c a u se Tho m as ha d no t op en ed an y acco un ts

, Oke ay ai nn eh di d no t pa y fo r h i s

ret ur n t rip to Mi nn es ot a; he di d, h owe ve r, pa y for th e ret ur n fl ig ht s o f Grig sb y an d

Brynte ns en

. Gris by an d Brynte ns en f l ew to Cal ifo rn ia a se co nd ti m e, whe re th ey

ag ai n e ng ag ed in si m il ar fra ud ul en t co nd uc t wi th Okea y ai nn eh

.

Grig sb y co nt in ue d to op en frau du le nt ba nk acco un ts in Mi nn es ot a un de r th e

di rect io n of bo th Oke ay ai nn eh an d Co k e r

. O n e o f th e acco un ts sh e op en ed was a

bu si ne ss ba nk acco un t at Ass oc ia te d Ban k us in g th e st ol en id en ti ty of J .B.

Oke ay ai nn eh ad m it te d se nd in g a st ol en ch eck fo r $1 07 ,01 8

. 7 1 to Mi nn es ot a fo r

de po si t in to th is frau du le nt acco un t. Afte r Tho m as ret ur ne d to Mi nn es ot a, he ag reed

to de po si t a c ou nt erfe it ch eck fro m Oke ay ai nn eh in to hi s o wn b an k a cco un t o n t wo

oc cas io ns . After th e ch eck s clea red

, Tho m as wit hd rew the en ti re s um in a se rie s o f

cas h wi th dr awal s. He g av e th e m on ey to Co ke r.

The ev id en ce fo un d in si de Oke ay ai nn eh ’s st or ag e lo ck er— in cl ud in g pa ss po rt
ph ot os of bo th Ade ni ran an d Grig sb y —al so st ro ng ly su pp or ts th e jury’ s fin di ng th at

Oke ay ai nn eh kn ew ab ou t, an d in te nt io na ll y joi ne d, th e co ns pi racy to co m m it ba nk

frau d an d th at he di d no t si m pl y co m m it “ is ol at ed act s ” o f frau d. Num ero us

co un te rfei t id en ti fic at io ns an d st ol en an d co un te rfei t ch eck s were lo cat ed in th e

st or ag e lo ck er, li nk in g hi m to th e as pe ct of th e ba nk frau d th at i n v o l v e d op en in g

frau du le nt acco un ts

. Als o in th e st or ag e lo ck er were ap pr ox im at el y 50 0 cred it card s

in th e na m es of ot he r pe op le an d hu nd red s of st ol e n c r e d i t

- card m ai le rs (o ffer s fo r

ne w cred it card s m ai le d di rect ly to cu st om ers ), as well as eq ui pm e nt fo r

m an uf a c t u rin g co un te rfei t cred it card s. Thi s ev id en ce li nk ed Oke ay ai nn eh to th e

as pe c t o f th e ba nk frau d th at in vo lv ed us in g st ol en cred it card s. Oke ay ai nn eh ’s

st or ag e lo ck er al so co nt ai ne d ha nd writ te n no te s wit h ba ck gr ou nd in fo rm at io n ab ou t

th e pe op le who se id en ti ti es an d cred it card s ha d be en st ol en

. Oke ay ai nn eh ad m it te d

th e no te s fo un d in th e lo ck er were in hi s ha nd writ in g, an d he ad m it te d ag reei ng wit h

Co ke r an d Grig sb y to de po si t st ol en ch eck s in to frau du le n t ba nk acco un ts an d

wit hd raw t he pro ceed s. The ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l was m or e th an su ffi ci en t t o

su pp or t Ok eayain ne h’s co nv ic ti on for co ns pi racy to c om m it ba nk frau d.

-1 0-2. Co ns pi ra cy Char t

Thro ug ho ut Oke ay ai nn eh ’s tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t rep ea t e d ly refe ren ced

Exh ib it 22 2: an or ga ni zat io na l ch art de pi ct in g th e na m es an d ph ot og rap hs of 20

pe op le in vo lv ed in th e cri m in al act iv it y at is su e, in cl ud in g Oke ay ai nn eh an d hi s

c o- de fen da nt s. The ph ot og rap hs were la be le d wit h th e ro le s each m em be r

p u r p o r t e d l y p l a y e d i n t h e c r i m e : “ F o o t S o l d i e r , ” “ B a n k I n s i d e r , ”

“ Ma na ge r/ Fa ci lit at or .” Oke ay ai nn eh ’s ph ot o was la be le d “ Lead er/O rg an iz er

. ” A t the

to p of the ch art ap pe ared th e wor d “ Co ns pi racy” in cap it al le tt ers

. Exh ib it 22 2 was

in tro du ced th ro ug h th e go ve rn m en t’s fir st wit ne ss , Dete ct iv e Lou is Bea uc ha ne , on e

of th e p rin ci pa l i nv es ti ga to rs in th e cas e.

Dete ct iv e Bea uc ha ne id en ti fie d in di vi du al ph ot og rap hs of th e pe op le de pi ct ed

in th e ch art a n d te st ifi ed ab ou t th ei r pu rp or te d ro le s in th e co ns pi racy, an d th e

go ve rn m en t m ov ed to ad m it Exh ib it 22 2. Afte r it was ad m it te d an d pu bl is he d to th e jury, Oke ay ai nn eh ’s tri al co un se l ob jecte d to th e ex hi bi t on th e ba si s th at it dr ew le ga l

co nc lu si on s. The co ur t ru le d co un se l’s ob jecti on was la te

, an d th e ex hi bi t rem ai ne d

in ev id en ce.

Oke ay ai nn eh arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng Exh ib it 22 2 in to

ev id en ce ov er hi s ob

jecti on

. The go ve rn m en t res po nd s th at he di d no t pr es erv e th is

is su e fo r rev ie w bec au se hi s o bjec ti on at t ria l was un ti m el y

.

To pr es erv e an ev id en ti ary is su e fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w, a ti m el y ob jecti on m us t

be m ad e. Fed

. R. Evi d. 10 3( a)(1 ). “ The ru le is well se tt le d in th is ci rcu it th at fo r an

ob jecti on to be ti m el y i t mu s t be m ad e at th e earl ie st po ss ib le op po rtu ni ty aft er th e

gr ou nd of ob

jecti on be co m es ap pa ren t, or it wil l be co ns id ered waiv ed .” Ter r el l v.

Po la nd

, 74 4 F.2 d 63 7, 63 8– 39 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ). In Terrel l, we ag reed th at a m ot io n to

st rik e m ad e aft er th e cl os e o f a l l ev id en ce was un ti m el y

. Id

. at 63 9. Si m il arl y , in

McKn ig ht ex

. rel

. Lud wig v. Jo hn so n Co nt ro ls

, In c., 36 F.3 d 13 96

, 14 07 –0 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 ), we he ld th at th e Fed eral Ru le s of Ev i de nc e req ui re ob jecti on s to be

-1 1-“ co nt em

po ran eo us ” an d ru l e d t ha t an ob jecti on m ad e at th e cl os e of a wit ne ss ’s

te st im on y di d n ot m eet th at req ui rem en t.

In th e cas e at ha nd

, ho wev er, de fen se co un se l di d no t wait u n t i l t h e en d of

Dete ct iv e Bea uc ha ne ’s te st im on y , no r un ti l th e cl os e of al l ev id en ce. I n s t e a d

, it

a p p e a r s fro m th e reco rd th at co un se l rai se d he r ob jecti on m ere m om en ts aft e r

Exh ib it 22 2 was in tro du ced

. The re was st il l am pl e op po rtu ni ty fo r th e jud ge to

pr ev en t fu rth er po te nt ia l da m ag e. W e co nc lud e th at Oke ay ai nn eh pr es erv ed th is is su e

fo r a pp eal an d th at ou r rev ie w is fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Bea l,

27 9 F .3d 56 7, 5 70 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

“ The co ur t m ay ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce if it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of

. . . un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us in g th e is su es , [o r] m is le ad in g

th e jury.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3. “ The da ng er of perm it ti ng pre se nt at io n o f a sum m ary

of so m e of th e ev id en ce in a cri m in al cas e is pl ai n. The jury m ig ht rel y up on th e

al le ge d fact s in th e su m

m ary as if th es e fact s ha d al read y be en p r o v e d [.]” Uni te d

St at es v. Scal es , 59 4 F.2 d 55 8

, 56 4 (6 th Ci r. 19 79 ). Su ch ev id en ce is pr op er,

ho wev er, whe n it “ as si st [s ] th e jury in un de rs ta nd in g t h e t e s ti m on y al read y

in tro du ced ” an d “ fai rly su m m ari zes ” tri al ev id en ce. Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Bo es en , 54 1

F.3 d 83 8, 84 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). In ad di ti on , “ su m m ari es m ay in cl ud e as su m pt io ns an d

co nc lu si on s so lo ng as th ey are ba se d up on ev id en ce in th e reco rd ,” Uni te d St at es v. Sp ire s, 62 8 F.3 d 10 49

, 10 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

, bu t m ay be reject ed

if th ey are to o co nc lu so ry or in accu rat e, se e Uni te d St at es v. Cro ck et t, 49 F.3 d 13 57

, 13 61 (8t h C ir. 1 99 5)

.

The ch art at is su e in th is cas e was pr es en te d be fo re an y of th e ev id en ce th e

go ve rn m en t cl ai m s it was mea nt to su m m ari ze an d was refe ren ced rep eat ed ly

th ro ug ho ut th e rem ai nd er o f th e tr ia l. The go ve rn m en t co nc ed es th e ch art was fir st

in tro du ced a t t h e st art of tri al

, an d th erea fte r, “ [w]hen a wit ne ss wou ld refe r to a

d e fen da nt by na m e or ni ck na m e, Exh ib it 22 2 wou ld be di sp la y ed an d th e w i t n e s s

wo u l d b e as ke d if th e pe rs on ’s pi ct ur e ap pe ared on th e ex hi bi t.” The go ve rn m en t

-1 2-arg ue s th at th e ch art was m erel y us ed “ fo r th e pu rp os e of ha vi ng wit ne ss es pu t a face

to a na m e.” Bu t th is pu rp os e co ul d eas il y ha ve be en acco mp l i s h e d wit ho ut th e

of fen di ng cap ti on s. In ad di ti on to be in g us ed as a to ol in cl os in g arg um en t, th e ch art

was pr es en te d to th e jury as su bs ta nt iv e ev id en ce an d ta ke n in to th e jury ro om to be

co ns id ered du rin g de li be rat io n. Cf. Cro ck et t, 49 F.3 d at 13 62 (em ph as iz in g co nc ern

w i t h t h e pr os ecu ti on ’s us e of su m m ary ch art s in cl os in g arg um en t an d warn in g

ag ai ns t vi su al ai ds in whi ch “ su m m ary co m es wrap pe d in im pr op er arg um en t” ). W e

co nc lu de th at th e di s tri ct co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it Exh ib it 22 2 as su bs ta nt iv e

ev id en ce was an ab us e of di sc ret io n be cau se it was un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l an d

co nc lu so ry to pr es en t a ph ot o of th e de fen da nt wit h a cap ti on la be li ng hi m th e le ad er

of th e co ns pi racy, w he n n o wi tn es s h ad y et tes ti fie d t o t ha t fa ct

.

A n erro ne ou s ev id en ti ary ru li ng is ha rm le ss , ho wev er, if it di d no t h a v e a

su bs ta nt ia l in flu en ce on th e jury’ s verd ic t. Uni te d Stat es v. Sam ue ls

, 61 1 F.3 d 91 4,

91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The in ve st ig at or who te st ifi ed ab ou t th e co nt en ts of Exh ib it 22 2

ha d be en in vo lv ed in th e in ve st ig at io n si nc e it be ga n in 20 09

, ha d kn owl ed ge of th e

pe op le de pi ct ed , and co ul d tes ti fy as to wha t hi s in ve st ig at io n s ho wed th ei r ro le s t o

be

. The in ve st ig at or was su bjec t to cro ss ex am in at io n a b o u t th e ch art

, an d

Oke ay ai nn eh ’s co un se l sp eci fic al ly el ic it ed fro m th e in ve st ig at or th e co nc es si on th at

th e ch art was crea te d by th e go ve rn m en t an d si m pl y de pi ct ed “ wha t th e go ve rn m en t

th in ks is go in g on .” Oke ay ai n n e h ’s co un se l m ad e th e sa m e po in t in cl os in g

arg um en t: “ [j] us t b ecau se th ey ha ve a ch art wit h m

y cl ie nt ’s he ad at th e to p d oe sn ’t

m ean he ’s th e ki ng pi n of th is op erat io n.” In ad di ti on , we no te th at two of th e

de fen da nt s on th e ch ar t

, id en ti fie d as “ ba nk in si de rs ”—S arn or -Dav id an d

Ose i-Tu tu —wer e a c q u i t t e d of al l ch arg es

. Thu s, th e jury’ s ve rd ic ts refl ect ed an

in di vi du al as se ss m en t of each de fen da nt an d th e ev id en ce ag ai ns t hi m or he r, no t an

un th in ki ng acce pt an ce of th e go ve rn m en t’s vi ews as de pi ct ed on th e ch art

. Mu lt ip le

wit ne ss es te st ifi ed as to Oke ay ai nn eh ’s g u i l t. The go ve rn m en t al so pr es en te d

Oke ay ai nn eh ’s own ad m is si on s. W he n, as he re, th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce of a

de fen da nt ’s gu il t is so ov erwh el m in g, an y erro r rel at ed to th e ad m is si on of a su m m ary

ch art is ha rm le ss . Spi res , 62 8 F .3d at 1 05 3.

-1 3-3. Admis si on s Dur in g Pro ffer

Oke ay ai nn eh ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng th e

go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n in li m in e to ad m it st at em en ts he m ad e du rin g a Ja nu a ry 18

, 20 11 pr of fer se ss io n wit h th e go ve rn m en t. Afte r he was arre st ed

, Oke ay ai nn eh an d

h i s de fen se co un se l m et wit h fed eral ag en ts an d a fed eral pr os ecu to r fo r a pr of f e r

se ss io n. Pri or to th e se ss io n, Oke ay ai nn eh rev ie wed a pr of fer le tt er, whi ch in cl ud ed

th e req ui rem en t th at he “ res po nd tru th fu ll y an d c om pl et el y to an y an d al l qu es ti on s

or in qu iri es th at migh t be pu t to [h im ] at th e m eet in g.” The le tt er warn ed

O k e ay ai nn eh th at “ an y st at em en ts m ad e or ot he r in fo rm at io n pr ov id ed by [h im ]

du rin g th e m eet in g” co ul d be us ed ag ai ns t hi m fo r an y pu rp os e i f t he go ve rn m en t

co nc lu de d he “ kn owi ng ly wit hh el d m at eri a l i n f or m at io n fro m th e go ve rn m en t or

ot he rwis e [h ad ] no t be en co m pl et el y tru th fu l an d can di d.” Oke ay ai nn eh rev ie wed th e

pr of fer le tt er wit h hi s co un se l, an d th e pr os ecu to r al so rev ie wed th e te rm s of th e

ag reem en t wit h Oke ay ai nn eh

. Oke ay ai nn eh si gn ed th e le tt er, ag reei ng to it s te rm s.

W hi le pr ep ari n g f

or tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t ob ta in ed au di ot ap es of te le ph on e

cal ls th at Oke ay ai nn eh mad e w hi le in carc erat ed

, whi ch th ey ha d tra ns la te d an d

tra ns cri be d. The te le ph on e cal ls —m ad e on Ja nu ary 14 an d 15

, 20 11

, jus t da y s be fo re

Oke ay ai nn eh si gn ed th e pr of fer le tt er— rev eal ed th at Oke ay ai nn eh ha d de ci de d to
gi ve fal se in fo rm at io n to in ve st ig at or s, an d wit hh ol d rel ev an t in fo rm at io n fro m th em

du rin g t he ses si on

.

In it s m ot io n in li m in e se ek in g pe rm is si on to in tro du ce Oke ay ai nn eh ’s pr of fer

s ta te m en ts at tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t as se rte d th at Oke ay ai nn eh ha d br each ed t h e

ex pr es s te rm s of th e ag reem en t by pr ov id i n g mat e r i al fal se in fo rm at io n du rin g th e

pr of fer se ss io n. Afte r rev ie win g th e tra ns la te d tra ns cri pt s, th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed

th e us e of Oke ay ai nn eh ’s pr of fer st at em en ts

, fin di ng th at he ha d “ ex pl ic it ly ag re e d

to ” th e “ cl ear an d un am bi gu ou s” te rm s of th e ag reem en t, whi ch en ti tl e d t h e

g o v e r n men t to us e hi s st at em en ts “ ag ai ns t hi m fo r an y pu rp os e,” if it was fo un d he

was “ no t tru th fu l an d/ or kn owi ng ly wit hh el d m at eri al in fo rm at io n.” The de ci si on of

-1 4-th e di st ric t co ur t en fo rced th e ag reem en t un de r pr in ci pl es of co nt ract la w, co ns is te nt

wit h ou r pr eced en t. See Uni te d St at es v. Hy le s, 52 1 F.3d 94 6, 95 2 (8t h Cir. 20 08 ).

On ap pe al

, Oke ay ai nn eh do es no t di rect ly co nt es t th at he br each ed th e pr of fer

ag reem en t. In st ead

, he arg ue s th at he di d no t kn owi ng ly waiv e hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t
rig ht ag ai ns t se lf- in cri m in at io n whe n he en te red in to th e ag reem en t du e to “ a st rai ne d

rel at io ns hi p wit h co un se l” an d an in co m pl et e un de rs ta nd in g of the pr of fer pr oc es s.

W hi le Oke ay ai nn eh pr es en te d a va ria ti on of th is arg um en t in a fil in g wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t, he of

fere d n o ev id en ce to su pp or t it

. Arg um en t is no t ev id en ce, se e Uni te d

St at es v. Fet lo w, 21 F.3 d 24 3, 24 8 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 4 )

, a nd wit ho ut an y ev id en ce to

su pp or t th is cl ai m , t he di st ric t co ur t di d no t e r r in ad m it ti ng th e st at em en ts at tri al

. See als o Uni te d Stat es v. McFar la ne , 30 9 F.3 d 51 0, 51 4 (8t h Cir. 20 02 ) (ex pl ai ni ng

th at by en te rin g in to an in fo rm al im m un it y a gr eem en t, “ th e de fen da nt es se nt ia ll y gi ve s up hi s rig ht to la te r as se rt hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t pr iv il eg e” as to th e in fo rm at io n

he pro vi de d u nd er t he ter m s o f th e ag reem en t).

4. Se nten ci ng Is su es

Oke ay ai nn eh ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s imp os it io n of fo ur se nt en ci ng

e n h a nc em en ts

. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s th e ev id en ce di d no t su pp or t a 24 -le ve l

in crea se fo r lo ss in e x c e s s of $5 0 m il li on , a 6- le ve l in crea se be cau se th e of fen se

in vo lv ed at le as t 25 0 vi ct im s, a 4- le ve l in crea se fo r hi s ro le in th e of fen se , or a 2- le ve l

in crea se fo r ob s t r u c t i o n of jus ti ce. “ W e rev ie w in te rp ret at io n of th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s de no vo an d a di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s to th e fact s fo r

cl ear e r r o r

. ” U n i te d St at es v. Ru th erfo rd

, 59 9 F.3 d 81 7, 82 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ).

“ [S]ent en ci ng jud ge s are req ui red to fin d se nt en ce-e nh an ci ng fact s on ly by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Sco tt

, 44 8 F.3 d 10 40

, 10 43 –4 4 (8 th

Ci r. 20 06 ).

Acco rd i n g t o O ke ay ai nn eh ’s p res en te nc e rep or t (PSR ), th e act ua l lo ss of th e

co ns pi racy was $7 ,15 5,7 63 .53

, an d th e in te nd ed lo ss was at le as t $5 4,8 70 ,38 8.6 2.

-1 5-In cl ud ed wit hi n th e in te nd ed -lo ss es ti m at e were th e ch eck s fo un d in Oke ay ai nn eh ’s

st or ag e lo ck er, whi ch ha d a to ta l face va lu e of ov er $1 8 m il li on

. Oke ay ai nn eh

co nc ed es th at in te nd ed lo ss , be cau se it is th e gr eat er va lu e, is th e pr op er m eas ur e fo r

Gui de li ne s pu rp os es

. See USSG § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.3 (A). He as se rts

, ho we v e r , t h at

be cau se m an y of

th e ch eck s fo un d in th e st or ag e lo ck er were ph ot oc op ie s, the y ha d

no real va lu e. Thu s, he co nc lu de s, th e di st ric t co ur t’s lo ss cal cu la ti on im pe rm is si bl y

in cl ud ed “ ch eck s or acco un t nu m be rs th at co ul d no t po ss ib ly be us ed to cau se a lo ss ”

an d is to o hi gh

. He as se rts th e pr op er in te nd ed lo ss es ti m at e was un de r $5 0 m il li on

.

Bec au se it i s o f

t e n di ffi cu lt to cal cu la te th e pr eci se am ou nt of lo ss in a frau d

cas e, di st ric t co u r t s “n eed on ly m ak e a reas on ab le es ti m at e of th e lo ss ,” USSG

§ 2 B 1

. 1 cm t. n.3 (C), an d m ay ba se th e es ti m at e on on ly a pr ep on de ran ce of t h e

ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Pari sh

, 56 5 F.3 d 52 8, 53 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e gr eat ly

de fer to th e se nt en ci ng jud ge ’s lo ss de te rm in at io n be cau se he “ ‘is in a un iq ue po si ti on

to as se ss th e ev id en ce an d es ti m at e th e lo ss ba se d up on th at ev id en ce.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng

USSG § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.3 (C))

. Acco rd in g l y, w e r ev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s lo ss

cal cu la ti on for cle ar er ro r. Id.

As de fin ed in th e Gui de li ne s, in te nd ed lo ss in cl ud es “ pe cu ni ary ha rm th at was

in te nd ed to res ul t fr om

th e o ffen se ,” ev en if t ha t p ecu ni ary h arm “ wou ld ha ve be en

im po ss ib le or un li ke ly to oc cu r.” USSG § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.3 (A)(i i). So ev en if so m e of

th e ch eck s fo un d in Oke ay ai nn eh ’s st or ag e lo ck er were ex pi red or “ co ul d no t possib ly

be us ed to cau se a lo ss ,” th e di st ric t cou rt was pe rm it te d to in cl ud e th em in th e to ta l

am ou nt of in te nd ed lo ss

. Cf. Uni te d St a t es v. Jo rd an , 54 4 F.3 d 65 6, 67 2 (6 th Ci r.

20 08 ) (u ph ol di ng in te nd ed -lo ss cal cu la ti on in cl ud in g fu ll $8 11 ,00 0 va lu e of ch eck s

m ai le d t o l oc k- bo x eve n th ou gh th e lo ck -b ox acco un t had be en fro zen be fo re fun ds

co ul d be wit hd rawn ); Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Rav el o, 37 0 F.3 d 26 6, 27 3 (2 d Ci r. 20 04 )

(u ph ol di ng di st ric t co ur t’s in te nd ed -lo ss cal cu la ti on th at in cl ud ed at te m pt ed cas h

ad va nc es dr awn in ex ces s o f cas h- ad va nc e li m it on st ol en cred it card s) . No r was it

un reas on ab le fo r th e co ur t to us e th e fu ll face va lu e of th e ch eck s i n i ts lo ss

cal cu la ti on : W he n a de fen da nt ob ta in s acce ss to a cred it li ne , whe th er by frau du le nt ly

-1 6-ap pl y in g fo r cred it card s, s e e U n i t e d St at es v. Gran t, 43 1 F.3 d 76 0, 76 4 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 05 ), or by writ in g co un te rfei t ch eck s, se e Uni te d St at es v. San to s, 52 7 F.3 d 10 03

, 10 08 (9 th Ci r. 20 0 8 )

, th e di st ric t co ur t m ay in fer th at th e de fen da nt wou ld se ek th e

fu ll va lu e of th at li ne of cred it

. Bec au se Oke ay ai nn eh pr es en te d no co nt rary ev id en ce

th at he di d no t in te nd to us e th e fu ll face va lu e of th e ch eck s, t h e co ur t pe rm is si bl y

cal cu la te d t he lo ss us in g t he ful l am ou nt

.

Oke ay ai nn eh do es no t co nt es t th e to ta l do ll ar am ou nt of th e ch eck s fo un d in

th e st or ag e lo ck er an d ha s no t ot he rwis e po in te d to an y th in g in th e reco rd to su gg es t

th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s es ti m at io n of lo ss is un reas on ab le

. W e can no t co nc lu de th at

th e co ur t’s es ti m at e is cle arl y erro ne ou s.

Oke ay ai nn eh ne xt arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce do es no t su pp or t a 6- le ve l in crea se

fo r th e nu m

be r of vi ct im s in vo lv ed

, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d was well ov er

25 0. Oke ay ai nn e h a c k n o wled ge s th at th e go ve rn m en t fo un d 87 00 “ pu rp or te d”

id en ti ti es in th e st or ag e lo ck er; bu t, he as se rts

, th e go ve rn m en t di d no t sh ow th at each

of th os e id en ti ti es be lo n g e d t o se pa rat e, ve rif ia bl e in di vi du al s an d th at no ne were

du pl ic at iv e. Oke ay ai nn eh co nc ed es th at at le as t 50 vi ct im s were ve rif ie d bu t arg ue s

th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t pr ov e th at he us ed th e m ean s of id en ti fic at io n of at le as t

25 0 in di vi du al s. Thu s, he co nc lu de s, he s h o u l d ha ve rece iv ed

, at m os t, a 4- le ve l

in crea se in hi s Gu id el in es ran ge

.

Sect io n 2B 1.1 (b )(2 ) of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s pr ov id es fo r a 6

- l e v el

in crea se if th e of

fen se in vo lv es at le as t 25 0 vi ct im s an d a 4

- l e ve l in crea se if th e

of fen se in vo lv es at le as t 50 vi ct im s. The ap pl ic at io n no te s to USSG § 2B1 .1 de fin e

two cat eg or ie s of a “ vi ct im ” fo r frau d of fen se s in vo l v i n g i d e n t it y th eft : (1 ) “ an y

pe rs on who su st ai ne d an y pa rt of th e act ua l l os s . . . [ or ] bo di ly i nju ry as a res ul t of

th e of fen se ,” whe th er or no t th ei r id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n act ua ll y was us ed ; an d (2 )

“ an y in di vi du al who se m ean s of id en ti fic at io n was us ed u n l a wfu ll y or wit ho ut

-1 7-au th or it y ,” ev en if th ey su ffer ed no lo ss or bo di ly in jury. USSG § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.1 & 5

4( E). A pe rs on do es no t be co m e a vi ct im

, ho wev er, m erel y b e c au se a de fen da nt

po ss es se d he r id en t i fy in g in fo rm at io n; it is on ly whe n th at in fo rm at io n is “ act iv el y

em pl oyed to fu rth er th e pu rp os e of th e co ns pi ra c y o r s c h e m e” th at sh e be co m es a

vi ct im

. Uni te d St at es v. Rab iu

, 72 1 F.3 d 46 7, 47 2– 74 (7 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Hal l, 7 04 F.3d 13 17 , 13 22 –2 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 3) ).

Thu s, we ag ree wit h O k eayain ne h th at th e co ns pi racy di d no t in vo lv e 87 00

“ vi ct im s” un de r USSG § 2B 1.1

. Bu t as th e go ve rn m en t po in ts ou t, ov er 50 0 vi ct im s

were i n fact id en ti fie d, an d ev id en ce at tri al sh owe d th at th os e pe rs on s’ i de nt ifyin g

in fo rm at io n ha d be en us ed to crea te frau du le nt dr iv er’s lice nse s, ope n fr au du le nt ba nk

acco un ts

, or wit hd raw fu nd s fro m th os e acco un ts

. The nu m be r is ev en hi gh er whe n

th e nu m be r of de frau de d ba nk s is ad de d. See USSG § 2B 1. 1 cm t. n.1 (d efi ni ng

“ [p ]erso n,” fo r pu rp os es of a “ vi ct im ,” to in cl ud e “ in di vi du al s , c o rp or at io ns ,

co m pa ni es , as so ci at io ns , fir m s, pa rtn ers hi ps , so ci et ie s, an d joi nt st oc k co m pa ni es ”).

The di st ric t co ur t ag reed th at th e ev id en ce su pp or te d a fin di ng t h a t O k eayain ne h’s

of fen se in vo lv ed m or e th an 50 0 vi ct im s, whi ch is well ov er th e 25 0 vi ct im s req ui red

fo r th e 6- le ve l en ha nc em en t. Giv en th e ev id en ce pr es en te d, we can no t sa y th e di st ric t

co ur t cl earl y

erre d i n m ak in g t hi s fi nd in g.

Oke ay ai nn eh ne xt arg ue s th e ev id en ce di d n ot su pp or t a 4- le ve l in crea se fo r

ro le in th e of

fen se

. Sect io n 3B 1.1 (a) of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s pr ov id es “ [i]f th e

de fen da nt was an or ga ni zer or le ad er of a cri m in al act iv it y th at in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e

pa rti ci pa nt s or was ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e, in crea se by 4 le ve ls .” In de t e r mi n i ng

whe th er t he en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s, we co ns id er

App li cat io n Not e 1 to USSG § 2B 1.1 ad vi se s th at “ m ean s of id en ti f i c a t i o n” 5

ha s th e m ean in g se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 10 28 (d )(7 ) an d e nc om pa ss es on ly act ua l

pe rs on s, no t fic ti ti ou s pe rs on s. The de fin it io n in § 10 28 (d )(7 ) in cl ud es an y “ na m e,

so ci al se cu rit y nu m

be r, da te of bi rth

, of

fic ia l St at e or go ve rn m en t is su ed dr iv er’s

li cen se or id en ti fic at io n nu m be r, al ie n reg is tra ti on nu m be r, go ve rn m en t p as sp or t

nu m be r, em pl oyer or t ax pa y er i de nt ifi cat io n n um be r.”

-1 8-th e ex erci se of de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y , th e na tu re of pa rti ci pa ti on in

t he co m m is si on of th e of

fen se , th e recr ui tm en t of acco m pl ic e s , t h e cl ai m ed rig ht to a la r g e r s h a r e of th e fru it s of th e cri m e, th e de gr ee of

pa rti ci pa ti on in pl an ni ng or or ga ni zi ng th e of fen se , th e na tu re an d sc op e of th e il le ga l act iv it y , an d th e de gr ee of co nt ro l an d au th or it y ex erci se d

ov er ot he rs

. The re can , of co ur se , be m or e th an on e pe rs on who

qu al ifi es as a le ad er or or ga ni zer of a cri m in al as so ci at io n or co ns pi racy. Th i s ad jus tm en t do es no t ap pl y to a de fen da nt who m erel y su gg e s t s

co m m it ti ng th e o ffen se

.

USSG § 3B 1.1 cm t. n.4

. Oke ay ai nn eh as se rts hi s co -d efen da nt Co ke r wa s t h e t r u e

le ad er of the co ns pi racy, whe reas he ov ers aw on ly a “ few part ic ip an ts who tra ve le d

to Cal ifo rn ia to op en acco un ts .” At se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t “s t r o ng ly reject [ed ]”

Oke ay ai nn eh ’s arg um en t. The di st ric t co ur t no te d th at m ul ti pl e wit ne ss es at tri al

t e s t i fie d th at Oke ay ai nn eh pr ov id ed th em wit h co un te rfei t id en ti ti es an d ch eck s,

in st ru ct ed th em ho w to co m m it th e frau d, an d to ok th em to pa rti cu la r ta rg et ba nk s to

en ga ge in th e frau du le nt tra ns act io ns

. Oke ay ai nn eh co ll ect ed th e pr oc eed s fro m th e

pa rti ci pa nt s recru it ed to cas h th e ch eck s, paying th em on ly a pe rcen ta ge of th e to ta l

am ou nt ob ta ine d. It w as O keay ai nn eh ’s st or ag e lo ck er, whi ch he freq ue nt ly acce ss ed

, th at co nt ai ne d th e nu m ero us do cu m en ts an d m at eri al s us ed in th e ov eral l co ns pi racy.

The di st ric t co ur t d i d n o t cl earl y err in ap pl y in g th e 4- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r

Oke ay ai nn eh ’s lea de rs hi p ro le

.

Oke ay ai nn eh la st ch al le n g e s a 2- le ve l in crea se in hi s of fen se le ve l im

po se d

be cau se th e d is tri ct co ur t fo un d h e ha d in te nt io na ll y li ed to in ve st ig at or s d ur in g h is

pr of fer se ss i o n

. S e c ti on 3C 1.1 of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s pr ov id es fo r a 2- le ve l

en ha nc em en t if “ th e de fen da nt w i l l fu ll y ob st ru ct ed or im pe de d, or at te m

pt ed to

ob st ru ct or im

pe de

, th e ad m in is tra ti on o f ju s t ic e wit h res pe ct to th e in ve st ig at io n,

pr os ecu ti on , or se nt en ci ng of th e in st an t of fen se of co nv ic t i on .” Here, th e di st ric t

co ur t im po se d th e en ha nc em en t aft er it co nc lu de d th at Oke ay ai nn eh ha d “ pr ov id [ed ]

a m at eri al ly fal se st at em en t to a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er th at si gn ifi can tl y ob st ru ct ed

or im pe de d th e of

fic ia l in ve st ig at io n or p r o se cu ti on of th e in st an t of fen se .” USSG

§ 3C 1.1

, cm t. n.4 (G). As we ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld

, “ th [is ] en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s on ly

-1 9-whe n th e m at eri al ly fal se st at em en t ‘ si gn if ic an tl y ob st ru ct ed or imp ed

ed th e of fic ia l

in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of th e in st an t of fen se .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. McKa nr y , 62 8

F.3 d 10 10

, 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng USSG § 3C 1.1 cm t. n.4 (G)); se e al so Uni te d

S ta te s v. W il li am s, 28 8 F.3 d 10 79

, 10 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (rejec ti ng en h a n c e men t

be cau se go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov id e a n y e v id en ce of ex te nt to whi ch de fen da nt ’s

di sh on es ty im

pe de d i ts in ve st ig at io n)

.

Oke ay ai nn eh as se rts tha t the gove rn m en t fa iled to of

fer an y ev id en ce to su pp or t

th e fin di ng th at hi s fal se st at eme n t s du rin g th e pr of fer se ss io n “ si gn ifi can tl y

ob st ru ct ed or im

pe de d th e of

fic ia l in ve st ig at io n or pr ose cu tio n of the ins ta nt of fen se .”

We ag ree. The go ve rn m en t ch os e no t to of fer an y ev id en ce on th i s i s s u e a t

s e n te nc in g. In st ead

, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co u r t w a s

en ti tl ed to rel y up on th e rep res en ta ti on of th e Ass is ta nt Uni te d Stat es Att or ne y th at

,

“ [w]e wast ed ti m e, res ou rces on all of t ho se th in gs .” It is th e go ve rn m en t’s bu rd en

to pr ov e by a pr ep o n d e r a nc e of th e ev id en ce th at th e en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to

§ 3C 1.1 ap pl ie s. Uni te d St at es v. Bl ed so e, 44 5 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 72 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). The

pr os ecu to r’s st at em en t to th e co ur t was not ev id en ce. See Fetl ow, 21 F.3 d at 24 8.

Th e go ve rn m en t’s arg um en t th at th e en ha nc em en t sh ou ld ap pl y be c a u s e

O k e a yain ne h at te mpt ed to ob st ru ct jus ti ce al so fai ls

. W hi le an at te m pt m ay b e

su ffi ci en t fo r ot he r types of ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t li st ed in ap pl ic at io n no te 4 to USSG

§ 3C 1.1

, th e co nd uc t fo r whi ch Oke ay ai nn eh rece iv ed th e en ha nc em en t req ui res th at

an in ve st ig at io n act ua ll y be im pe de d in so m e way

. See McKa nr y , 62 8 F.3 d at 10 21

. The cas es th e go ve rn m en t ci te s in vo lv e di ffer e n t f or m s of ob st ru ct io n an d are

in ap po si te to th e is su e be fo re us

. See Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 66 5 F.3 d 95 1, 95 5– 57

(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (Ap pl ic at io n Not e 4( A): at te m pt to ret al ia te ag ai ns t a wit ne ss ); Uni te d

St at es v. Jo ne s, 61 2 F.3 d 10 40

, 10 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (Ap pl ic at io n Not e 4( A) an d (B):

at te m pt to es ta bl is h a fal se al ib i an d su bo rn in g pe rjury); Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 56 0

F.3 d 75 4, 77 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (Ap pl ic at io n Not e 4( D): at te m pt to de st ro y ev id en ce).

W it ho u t an y ev id en ce to su pp or t th e fin di ng th at th e fal se st at em en ts su bs ta nt ia ll y

-2 0-ob st ru ct ed or im pe de d th e of

fic ia l in ve st ig at io n or pr os ecu ti on of th e in st an t of fen se , it was c le ar er ro r to im

po se th e 2 -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce.

C. Olug beng a Ade ni ra n

1. Mo tio n fo r J udg m ent o f Acqui tta l

Ade ni ran arg ue s th e go ve r n ment fai le d to pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of a si ng le

co ns pi racy to co m

m it ba nk frau d. He as se rts th e na tu re of th e act iv it ie s in vo lv ed in

th is c a s e sh ows th ere were two co ns pi raci es : th e on e in whi ch he pa rti ci pa te d,

in vo lv in g th e us e of frau du le nt cred it card s to ge t cash ad va nc es an d gi ft card s; an d

t he ot he r, in vo lv in g th e op en in g of frau du le nt ba nk acco un ts fo r th e pu rp os e o f

de po si ti ng , an d th en cas hi ng , st ol en an d frau du le nt ch eck s. He no te s th at hi s us e of

frau du le nt cred it card s o c c ur red so le ly in Mi nn es ot a du rin g a two -m on th pe rio d,

whi le th e co ns pi racy in vo lv in g th e frau du le nt ba nk a c c o u n t s was a m ul ti -s ta te

en de av or th at sp an ne d fro m 20 06 to Mar ch 20 11

. H e a s s e rts th e va ria nc e be twee n

th e go ve rn m en t’s in di ct m en t— whi ch al le ge d a si ng le co ns pi racy—an d th e ev id en ce

at tri al —wh ic h, he as se rts

, pr ov ed two or m or e co ns pi raci es —i nf rin ge d on hi s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Ade ni ran no te s th at he di d no t kn ow m an y of th e pe op le in vo lv ed

in th e ov e r a l l co ns pi racy, in cl ud in g Oke ay ai nn eh

, an d few pe op le kn ew hi m

.

“ W he th er a gi ve n cas e in vo lv es si ng le or m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es de pe nd s on whe th er

th ere was on e ov eral l ag reem en t to pe rfo rm va rio us fu nc ti on s to ach ie ve th e ob jecti ve

of th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d St at es v. Rad tk e, 41 5 F.3 d 82 6, 83 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )

(in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d ci ta ti on o mi t t e d)

. W e lo ok at th e to ta li ty of th e

ci rcu m st an ces , an d “ be cau se it is a qu es ti on of fact

, we dr aw al l reas on ab le in fere nc es

in fav or of t he ve rd ic t.” Id

.

Ade ni ran ’s arg um en ts are well -ta ke n, bu t he ov e r l o o k s se ve ral ke y po in ts

. Fi rs t, “ to be gu il ty of a si ng le co ns pi racy, th e co ns pi rat or s ne ed no t kn ow each ot he r

or be pr iv y to th e de ta il s of each en te rp ris e co m pr is in g th e co ns pi racy as lo ng as th e

ev id en ce i s su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at each de fen da nt po ss es se d fu ll kn owl ed ge of th e

-2 1-co ns pi racy’ s ge ne ral pu rp os e an d sc op e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ch an th arat h, 7 0 5 F.3 d

29 5, 30 1– 02 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ Tha t th e co ns pi rat or s en te red th e

co ns pi racy at di ffer en t tim es an d pl ay ed di sc ret e ro le s do es no t co m pe l a f in di ng of

m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es .” Uni te d St at es v. San ti st eb an , 50 1 F.3 d 87 3, 88 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ). It is su ffi ci en t th at th ere was an ag reem en t to co m mi t b a nk frau d, th at

Ade ni ran kn ew of th e ag reem en t, an d th at he in te nt io na ll y joi ne d in th e ag reem en t.

Mo rri s, 72 3 F.3 d at 93 9– 40 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ A si ng le co ns pi racy m ay ex is t ev en

if th e pa rti ci pa nt s an d th ei r act iv it ie s ch an ge ov er ti m e an d ev en if m an y pa rti ci pa nt s

were un aware of

, or un in vo lv ed in

, so m e th e tra n s a ct io ns

. Fu rth er, th e ag reem en t

ne ed no t be ex pl ic it

, b u t m ay be ta ci t, ba se d up on th e act io ns of th e de fen da nt .”

Uni te d St at es v. Ram on -Ro dr ig ue z, 49 2 F.3 d 93 0, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Ade ni ran m ay

ha ve kn own a rel at iv el y sm al l nu m be r of fel lo w co ns pi rat or s, bu t th at fact al on e do es

no t s up po rt a fin di ng of m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es

.

Seco nd

, th e ul ti m at e “ ob

jecti ve of th e co ns pi racy” in th is cas e was to co m m it

ba nk frau d by va rio us m ean s. As th e go ve rn m en t no te s, the in di ct m en t all eg ed th at

th e pu rp os e of th e co ns pi racy to co m m it ba nk frau d “ was to ob ta in an d us e m ean s of

id en ti fic at io n of ot he r pe rs on s to crea te fal se ba nk an d cr ed it ca rd ac co un ts ” an d “ to

ob tain m on ey an d m erch an di se th ro ug h th e us e of frau du le nt ly ob ta in ed ba nk acco un t

in fo rm at io n, cr ed it

ca rd s , and co un te rfei t ch eck s.” (Em ph as is ad de d.)

Fi na ll y , ba se d on th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al

, Ade ni ran ha d reg ul ar co nt act

wit h ot he rs who were in vo lv ed in bo th th e cred it card an d th e ba nk acco un t asp ect s

of th e co ns pi racy—fu rth er su pp or ti ng th e co nc lu si on th at he un de rs to od th e pu rp os e

an d s c o pe of th e co ns pi racy. Fo r ex am pl e, ev id en ce sh owe d th at Co ke r recr ui te d

pe op le to he lp op e n f

r a u d u le nt ba nk acco un ts ; Ade jum o, to o, was in vo lv ed in th e

frau du le nt ba nk acco un t as pe ct of t he ba nk frau d. Ad en ira n was co nn ect ed to bo th

of th es e m en

. Co ke r was in th e car with Ade ni ran on Ja nu ary 7, 20 10

, at So ut hd al e

Cen te r sh or tl y be fo re Ade ni ran ’s arre st

, an d Co ke r co nt i n ue d to us e th e sa m e

co un te rfei t cre d i t c a r d A de ni ran ha d us ed th at le d to hi s arre st

. Tele ph on e reco rd s

al so li nk ed Ade ni ran to bo th Ade jum o an d Co ke r, act iv e m em be rs of th e ba nk -fra ud

-2 2-co ns pi racy, du rin g th e rel ev an t ti m e pe rio d. Oth er wit ne ss es al so te st ifi ed th at 6

Ade ni ran ha d kn owl ed ge of th e ba nk -acc ou nt as pe ct of th e co ns pi racy. Co op erat in g

co -d efen da nt Bo ro de Aki nr op o he ard Ade n i r a n di sc us s op en in g frau du le nt ba nk

acco un ts an d de po si ti ng st ol en ch eck s fo r la te r wit hd rawal wit h bo th Co ke r an d

Ade jum o. Co op erat in g co -d efen d an t Ju de Oka fo r ov erh eard Ade ni ran , C ok er, an d

Ade jum o di sc us si ng ho w to op en frau du le nt ba nk acco un ts fo r th e pu rp os e of

co m m it ti ng ba nk frau d.

Drawi ng al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of t he jury’ s v erd ic t, t he ev id en ce

su pp or te d a fin di ng of a si ng le co ns pi racy wit h on e “ ge ne ral pu rp os e an d sc op e.” In

th is cas e, th e jury co u l d r e a s o n ab ly fin d th at Ade ni ran kn ew of th e ag reem en t to

co m m it frau d an d th at he in te nt io na ll y ag reed wit h at le as t Co ke r an d Ade jum o to joi n

th e a g r e e men t, la rg el y th ro ug h th e us e of co un te rfei t an d st ol en cred it card s an d

frau du le nt id en ti fic at io n d oc um en ts . See Mo rri s, 7 23 F.3d at 9 39

.

2. Se nten ci ng Is su es

Ade ni ran as se rts th e d is tri ct co ur t erre d whe n it de te rm in ed hi s “ of fen se

ot he rwis e in vo lv ed so ph is ti cat ed means .” Sect io n 2B 1.1 (b )(1 0) of th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s pr ov id es fo r a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r us in g “ so ph is ti cat ed m ean s” in a

frau du le nt sc he m e. Uni te d St at es v. Kief fer, 62 1 F.3 d 82 5, 83 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 0 )

.

“ [S]op hi st ic at ed m ean s” co ns is ts of “ es pe ci al l y co m pl ex or es pe ci al ly in tri cat e

of fen se co nd uc t pe rta in in g to th e ex ecu ti on or co nc eal m en t of an of fen se .” USSG §

2B 1.1 (b )(1 0) cm t. n.9 (B). The en ha nc em en t ap pl i e s “wh e n th e of fen se co nd uc t,

vi ewed as a who le

, was no ta bl y m or e in tri cat e th an th at of th e ga r d e n

- va rie ty

[o ffen se ]. ” Uni te d St at es v. Je nk in s, 57 8 F.3 d 74 5, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) ( q u o ta ti on

Rec or d s sh owe d 32 1 te le ph on e cal ls be twee n nu m be rs as so ci at ed wit h 6

A d e n ira n an d Ade

jum o fro m Nov em

be r 4, 20 09

, to Ja nu ary 7, 20 10

, an d 1 7 8

te le ph on e cal ls be twee n nu m be rs as so ci at ed wit h Ade ni ran an d Co k e r f r om
Nov em be r 19 , 20 09 , to Jan ua ry

13 , 20 10

.

-2 3-om it te d)

. The en ha nc em en t m ay be ap pr op ria te whe n a de fen da nt ’s sc he m e “ di d no t

in vo lv e a si ng le frau du le nt act

, b u t a co m pl ex se rie s of frau du le nt tra ns act io ns .”

Kief fer, 62 1 F

. 3 d at 83 5 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The fact ua l fin di ng th at a sc he m e

qu al ifi es as “ so ph is ti cat ed ” is rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Hus to n, 74 4

F.3 d 5 89 , 59 2 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Co ntr ar y to Ade ni ran ’s as se rti on s, hi s of fen se was no t a sim

ple

, str ai ght fo rw ar d

en te rp ris e su ch as st eal in g a cred it card ou t of a m ai lb ox an d us in g it to pu rch as e gi ft

card s or ge t cas h ad va nc es

. See Uni te d St at es v. Han ce, 50 1 F.3 d 90 0, 90 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ). Evi de nc e at tri al sh owe d th at he us ed m ul ti pl e st ol en cred it car d s di ve rte d

fro m th ei r tru e own ers by ot he rs in th e co ns pi racy. W he n a r r e s te d, he was in

po ss es si on of t hr ee sto le n cred it card s and co rres po nd in g id en ti fic at io n do cu m en ts

,

sp eci fic al ly crea te d with hi s pi ct ur e on th em

. In ad di ti on , he ha d ha nd writ te n no te s

wit h pe rs on al in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e pe op le who se cred it card s ha d be en st ol en , whi ch

he us ed whe n ob ta i n i n g cas h ad va nc es an d gi ft card s. Ade ni ran ’s co nd uc t was

co m pl ex —i nc lu di ng ob ta in in g id en ti fic at io n do cu m en ts to m at ch th e st ol en cred it

card s— an d it was rep et it iv e in na tu re. Ade ni ran al so be ne fit te d f r o m hi s

co -co ns pi rat or ’s act iv it ie s in rero ut ing the cr ed it ca rd s an d cr ea

tin g fak e id en ti fic at io n

do cu m en ts to as si st hi m in hi s cred it -car d sc he m e. See Uni te d St at es v. Pi zan o, 42 1

F.3 d 70 7, 73 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e can n o t s a y t h e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d whe n

im po si ng th is en ha nc em en t.

Ade ni ran ne xt as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y ap pl ie d a 3- le v e l

en ha nc em en t fo r be in g a m an ag er or su pe rv is or of a cri m in al act iv it y in vo lv in g fiv e

or m or e pa rti ci p a n t s

. S e e U SSG § 3B 1.1 (b ). Ade ni ran do es no t di sp ut e th at m or e

th an fiv e pe op le pa rti ci pa te d in th e co ns pi racy; rat he r, he co nt es ts th e ro le he pl ay ed

in th e co ns pi racy. The go ve rn men t arg ue s Ade ni ran ’s ph on e cal ls wit h Co ke r an d

Ade jum o— bo th cl as si fie d by th e go ve rn m en t as hi gh -le ve l m em be rs of th e

c o n s p i racy—de m on st rat e th at he was li ke wis e a m an ag er or su pe rv is or

. The

go ve rn m en t as se rts Ade ni ran ’s cal ls fro m th e jail to Ade jum o an d Co ke r i n d ic at e

Ade ni ran was qu it e co nc ern ed th at th e ha nd writ te n no te s se iz ed fro m hi m at th e ti m e

-2 4-of hi s arre st co ul d co m pr om is e th e on go in g ba nk -fra ud co ns pi racy, an d th at a “ m ere

fo ot so ld ie r wou ld no t b e ex pe ct ed to po ss es s” su ch do cu m en ts

. 7

“ The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g by a pr ep on de ran c e o f th e

ev id en ce th at th e ag gr av at in g ro le of fen se is warra nt ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Gain es , 63 9

F. 3 d 4 2 3

, 4 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). “ The di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s, in cl ud in g it s

de te rm in at io n of a de fen da nt ’s ro le in th e of fen se , are rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r, whi le

it s ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es to th e fact s is rev ie wed de n o v o

. ” Id

. at 42 7– 28

(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

W e br oa dl y de fin e wha t co ns ti tu te s ev id en ce su ffi ci en t to s u p po rt an

ag gr av at in g ro le en ha nc em en t. Des pi te th e br ead th of ou r de fin it io n, ho wev er, “ [w]e

ha ve al way s req ui red ev id en ce th at th e de fen d a n t d i r e ct ed or pr oc ur ed th e ai d of

un de rli ng s

. ” U n it ed St at es v. Irl m ei er, 75 0 F.3 d 75 9, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d Stat es v. Rowl ey , 97 5 F .2d 13 57

, 13 64 n.7 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 )). “ To qu al ify fo r

an ad jus tm en t un de r th is se ct io n, th e de fen da nt m us t ha ve be en th e or ga ni zer, le ad er,

m an ag er, or su pe rv is or of on e or mor e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s.” Irl m ei er, 75 0 F.3 d at 76 3

(q uo ti ng USSG § 3 B1 .1 cm t. n .2).

In th is cas e, th e ev id en ce is si m pl y in su ffi ci en t. The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on th e

tri al te s t im on y of co -d efen da nt s Okwu ch uk wu Ji do efo r, Kab as o Man da an d Ju de

Oka fo r an d t h e pr es en ce of Ade ni ran ’s ph ot os in Oke ay ai nn eh ’s st or ag e lo ck er to

su pp or t it s fin di ng th at Ade ni ran pl ay ed a m an ag eri al ro le in th e co ns pi racy. Neit he r

Ji do efo r, Man da

, no r Ok a f o r te st ifi ed th at Ade ni ran recr ui te d th em , pl an ne d or

or ga ni zed th e i r c r i m in al act iv it y , or ex erci se d an y de ci si on -m ak in g au th or it y ov er

Oke ay ai nn eh al so su pp li ed Grig sb y , Tho m as , an d Brynte ns en wit h th e na m es , 7

bi rth da te s, so ci al se cu rit y nu m be rs , an d ph on e nu m

be r s o f th e pe op le th ey im pe rs on at ed whe n op en in g bu si ne ss ba nk acco un ts

. A no te bo ok co nt ai ni ng si m il ar in fo rm at io n was fou nd in Grig sb y ’s pu rs e whe n sh e was arre st ed . The g ov ern m en t
h a s ne ve r al le ge d Grig sb y or Brynte ns en was an y th in g bu t wha t it te rm s a “fo o t

so ld ie r,” an d Th om as was n ot in di ct ed

.

-2 5-th ei r pa rti ci pa ti on in th e ba nk -fra ud sc he m e. Ji do efo r, on e of Co ke r’s cl os e

as so ci at es , sa w Ade ni ran on ly on ce. Ji do efo r di d no t sp eak to Ade ni ran an d was no t

in tro du ced to hi m

. Man da te st ifi ed he was recr ui te d in to th e co ns pi racy by hi s fri en d

“ Ch ris ,” who pa id fo r hi s fli gh t to Mi nn es ot a. It was no t un ti l th e da y aft er hi s arri va l

th at Man da met “t h e m an fro m New Yor k” —wh om he id en ti fie d as Ade ni ran —at

A d e ju mo’s ho us e. W hi le Man da wen t wit h Ade jum o to va rio us ba nk s to ge t cas h

us in g frau du le nt do cu m en ts

, Ade ni ran “ di d hi s own th in g.” Fi na ll y , al th ou gh Oka fo r pl ead ed gu il ty to ai di ng an d ab et ti ng Ade ni ran fro m Nov em be r to Decem

be r 20 09 by

al lo win g Ade ni ran an d ot he rs to m eet at hi s sh op , he co nc ed ed on cro ss ex am in at io n

th at Ade ni ran cam e to hi s sh op on ly on ce an d ne ve r di sc us se d cred it -car d frau d wit h

hi m

. The on e ti m e Ade n i r a n w as in th e sh op , Oka fo r te st ifi ed

, he of fere d to le t

Ade n i r a n w o rk in ex ch an ge fo r fo od be cau se Ade ni ran ha d no m on ey

. The m ere

pr es en ce of Ade ni ran ’s ph ot o in th e st or ag e lo ck er, whe re nu m ero us an d va rie d fo rm s

of id en ti f i c a t i on al so were lo cat ed

, do es no th in g to su gg es t a le ad ers hi p ro le in th e

co ns pi racy.

Lik ewis e, ph on e cal ls to m an ag ers in th e co ns pi racy, wit ho ut m or e, do es no t

m ean Aden ira n i s n eces sa ril y a m an ag er as well ; an d c on cern for th e su cces s o f th e

co ns pi racy i s l ik el y to be a se nt im en t sh ared by al l co ns ci en ti ou s pa rti ci pa nt s. The

ev id en ce in th is cas e do es no t su pp or t a f i nd in g th at Ade ni ran was an or ga ni zer,

le ad er, m an ag er, or su pe rv is or of an y ot he r pe rs on in th e co ns pi racy, an d it was erro r

to im po se a 3- le ve l en ha nc em en t p ur su an t t o USS G § 3 B1 .1(b ).

Fi na ll y , Ade ni ran arg ue s th e d i s t r i c t co ur t m is ap pl ie d th e Sen te nc in g

Gui d e l i n e s de fin it io n of “ rel ev an t co nd uc t” in de te rm in in g hi s se nt en ce fo r th e

co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on

. Rel ev an t con du ct is de te rm in ed un de r th e Gui de li ne s bas ed

on a de fen da nt ’s own act s an d, in th e cas e of joi nt ly un de rta ke n act iv it y ,“ al l

reas on ab ly fo res eeab le act s an d om is si on s of ot he rs in fu rth eran ce of th e joi nt ly

un de rta ke n cri m in al act iv it y .” USSG § 1B 1.3 (a)( 1) (B). “Ac ti on s are reas on ab ly

fo res eeab le to a de fen da nt whe n th ey fal l wit hi n th e sc op e of th e ag reem en t be twee n

th e de fen da nt an d t he co -co ns pi rat or s.” Unit ed St at es v. Hod ge , 59 4 F.3d 61 4, 62 0

-2 6-(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cas ares –C ard en as , 14 F.3 d 12 83

, 12 88 (8 th

Ci r. 19 94 )).

Ade ni ran arg ue s he sh ou ld be he ld acco un ta bl e fo r on ly t he lo ss am ou nt an d

nu m be r of vi ct im s di rect ly at tri bu ta bl e to hi s us e of frau du le nt cred it card s to ob ta in

cas h ad va nc es or bu y gi ft card s in th e Mi nn eap ol is m et ro area fro m Nov em be r 20 09

to Ja nu ary 20 10

. Bas ed so le ly on th e su bs ta nt iv e co un ts on whi ch he was co nv ic te d,

acco rd in g to Ade ni ran , th e lo ss is $1 22 ,17 5 wit h a to ta l of fo ur vi ct im s. He co nt en ds

th e di st ric t cou rt erred be cau se th e am ou nt of l os s an d n um be r of vi ct im s at tri bu te d

to Oke ay ai nn eh —an in te nd ed lo ss of ov er $5 0 m il li on an d m or e th an 25 0

vi ct im s— was no t pa rt of th e joi nt ly un de rta ke n cri m in al act iv it y in whi ch he ag reed

to pa rti ci pa te an d was no t re as on ab ly fores eeab le to hi m

.

“ W e rev ie w th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt’s fin di ng s as to sc op e of th e de fen da nt ’s

un de rta ki ng , f

o r e s e e a bi li ty to th e de fen da nt

, an d fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy fo r

cl ear erro r.” Uni t e d St at es v. Sp ot te d Elk

, 54 8 F.3 d 64 1, 67 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s de no vo

. Id

. “ [A]

de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy do es no t au to m at ic al ly m ean th at [h e] ha s

fo res een th e [t o t a l a m ou nt of ba nk frau d] i nv ol ve d in th e en ti re co ns pi racy.” Id . a t

67 4. In de te rm in in g th e in di vi du al de fen da nt ’s rel ev an t co nd uc t, th e di st ric t co ur t

m us t l oo k a t wh at th e in di vi du al ha s ag reed to do an d wh et he r th e act io ns of o th ers

in th e co ns pi racy were fo res eeab le fro m hi s v an ta ge po in t. Id

.

Am pl e ev id en ce su pp or ts Ade ni ran ’s i nv ol ve m en t in th e ch arg ed co ns pi racy

fro m Nov em

be r 20 09 to hi s Ja nu ary 7, 20 10

, arre st

. Lack in g in th e reco rd

, ho wev er,

is an y ev id en ce of Ade ni ran ’s in vo lv em e n t i n t h e co ns pi racy be fo re or aft er th es e

da te s. “ The co m

m en t a r y to § 1B 1.3 ex pr es sl y st at es th at co nd uc t of th e ot he r

co ns pi rat or s th at oc cu rred be fo re th e de fen da nt joi ne d th e co ns pi racy is or di na ril y no t

‘relev an t co nd uc t,’ co m

m en t. (n .2), an d we ha ve reas on ed fro m th is ex cl us io n th at a

pe rs on sh ou ld al so no t be he ld res po ns ib le fo r th e lo ss es th at oc cu r aft er he ex it s th e

co n s p ira cy .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The Gui de li ne s req ui re an in di vi du al iz ed

-2 7-as se ss m en t of Ade ni ran ’s c r i mi na l un de rta ki ng , an d be in g co nv ic te d on th e sa m e

ch arg e as a co -d ef

e n d a nt —h ere, Oke ay ai nn eh —d oe s no t ne ces sa ril y eq ua te to a

cal cu la ti on of th e sa m e of fen se le ve l. Oke ay ai nn eh ’s of f e n s e l e v el was cal cu la te d

ba se d on hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in ne arl y al l as pe ct s of th e co ns pi racy to co m m it ba nk frau d

ov er a su bs t a n t i a l pe rio d of ti m e. As we ha ve co nc lu de d, th e reco rd su pp or ts th e

di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s th at a lo ss of at le as t $5 0 m il li on an d in vo lv em en t of at le as t

25 0 v ic ti m s wer e rea so na bl y for es eeab le to Okea y ai nn eh

.

In co nt ras t, ba se d on th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al

, Ade ni ran was si gn ifi can tl y

le ss in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy in sc op e an d ti m e. On ap pe al

, th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s

“ [t]he di st ric t co u r t co nc lu de d th at th e en ti re in te nd ed lo ss am ou nt sh ou ld be

at tri bu ta bl e to Ade ni ran as rel ev an t co nd uc t be cau se ‘A de ni ran ha d a m an ag eri al ro le

in th e co ns pi racy.’ ” Bu t as we co nc lu de d pr ev io us ly, th e ev id en ce do es no t su pp or t

a fin di ng th at Ade ni ran was a m an ag er fo r pu rp os es of th e en ha nc em en t. The di st ric t

co ur t i m pr op erl y in ferr ed fro m

th at en ha nc em en t th e am ou nt of lo ss an d n um be r of

vi ct im s reas on ab ly fo res eeab le to Ade ni ran

. Afte r rem ov in g th at in fere nc e, th ere is

in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s reg ard in g Ade ni ran ’s

pl an s i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e co ns pi racy an d what was fo res eeab le to hi m . Becau se

of th is

, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t c l e a r ly erre d in fin di ng Ade ni ran was

res po ns ib le fo r at le as t $5 0 m il li on in lo ss an d at leas t 25 0 vi ct im s. W e le av e to th e

di st ric t co ur t on rem an d to m ak e th e in di vi du al iz ed de te rm in at io n of wha t was

reas on ab ly fores eeab le to Aden ira n fo r pu rp os es of t he se en ha nc em en ts

.

D. Adeto k unbo Adejumo

Ade jum o p l e a d ed 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 ba se d on th e us e of a st ol en cred it card

, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

im po se d a se nt en ce of 12 4 m on th s. Ade jum o rai s e s s e v e r a l is su es rel at ed to hi s

se nt en ce. He as se rts th e d is tri ct co ur t erred by im po si ng a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r

ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, de nyin g a red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y , im po si ng

-2 8-a 3- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ro le in th e of fen se , refu si ng to al lo w hi m to ch al le ng e th e

am ou nt of l os s, an d c al cu la ti ng hi s cr im in al hi st or y sco re.

Adej um o fi rst as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in as se ss in g a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t

pu rs ua nt to USSG § 3C 1.1 fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce. Afte r pl ead in g gu il ty in fed eral

co ur t in Ju ly 20 11

, A d e

ju mo was rel eas ed pe nd in g se nt en ci ng

. In Octo be r 20 11

, Ade jum o was arre st e d an d ch arg ed wit h do m es ti c as sa ul t in co nn ect io n wit h an

in ci de nt in vo lv in g a fo rm er gi rlf rie nd

, Sal an Sarh an

. Bas ed on th e arre st

, hi s pr et ria l

se rv ic es su pe rv is or fil ed a pe t i t io n to rev ok e hi s pr et ria l rel eas e. At th e he ari ng on

th e pe ti ti on on Octo be r 20

, 20 11

, Offi cer Ell io t Fau st te st ifi ed th at ap p r ox im at el y

twel ve ho ur s afte r th e in ci de nt

, Sarh an rep or te d Adeju m o had sl ap pe d, cho ke d, and

ki ck ed he r un ti l sh e be ga n to bl ack ou t. The go ve rn m en t al so in tro du ced ph ot og rap hs

Offi cer Fau st ha d ta ke n of Sarh an whe n sh e rep or te d th e in ci de nt th at sh owe d m ark s

on he r ne ck

. Sarh an al so te st ifi ed at th e Octo be r 20 he ari ng

. Sh e rem em be red be in g

ch ok ed an d pa ss in g ou t, sh e rem em be red Ade jum o an d an ot he r m an st an din g ov er he r

whe n sh e reg ai ne d co ns ci ou sn es s, bu t sh e di d no t reca ll who as sa ul te d he r be cau se

sh e was in to xi cat ed at th e ti m e. Ade jum o te st ifi ed he di d no t as sa ul t Sarh an an d was

st an di ng ov er he r to pr ot ect he r fro m th e ot he r pe op le pr es en t. He te st ifi ed he di d no t

kn ow wh o a ss au lt ed Sarh an

.

Th e mag i s tra te jud ge fo un d th ere was pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e Ade jum o

vi ol at ed st at e la w an d rev ok ed Ade jum o’s pr et ria l rel eas e. In a writ te n or de r, th e

m ag is tra te jud ge st at ed th at he “ ex pr es sl y ” be li ev ed th e ve rs io n of ev en ts or ig in al ly

rep or te d by Sarh an to Offi cer Fau st th e aft ern oo n aft er th e at ta ck an d “ ex pr es sl y ” di d

no t be li ev e Ade

jum o. Bas ed on th is fin di ng , Ade jum o’s PSR reco m

m en de d a 2- le ve l

en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to USSG § 3C 1.1 fo r pr ov id in g “ m at eri al ly fal se in fo rm at io n

to a

. . . m ag is tra te jud ge .” See USSG § 3C 1.1 cm t. n.4 (F). Mat eri al ev id en ce is

de fin ed as “ ev id en ce

. . . th at

, if be li ev ed

, wou ld te nd to in flu en ce or affe ct th e is su e

un de r de te rm in at io n.” Id . § 3C 1.1 cm t. n.6

. Ade jum o ob jecte d, de nyin g he fal se ly

te st ifi ed at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng

. Ade jum o arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by rel y in g

-2 9-ex cl us iv el y on th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s fact ua l fin di ng s ra t h er th an m ak in g it s own

in de pe nd en t fi nd in gs when im po si ng th e en ha nc em en t.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s in su pp or t of an ob st r uc ti on of

jus ti ce en ha nc em en t fo r c l e ar erro r an d it s ap pl ic at io n of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

to th e fact s de no vo .” Uni t e d S t at es v. O’ Dell

, 20 4 F.3 d 82 9, 83 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ).

“ The go ve rn m en t be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th e fact s ne ces sa ry to su pp or t a fin di ng

of ob st ru ct io n by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Thu nd ers hi el d,

47 4 F .3d 50 3, 5 07 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

The Sen te nc in g Gui de li n e s pr ov id e fo r a 2- le ve l in crea se if “ th e de fen da nt

wil lfu ll y ob st ru ct ed or im pe de d, or at te m

pt ed to ob st ru ct o r i mp ed e, th e

ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce wit h res pe ct to th e in ve st ig at io n, pr os ecu ti on , or se nt en ci ng

of th e in st an t of

fe ns e of co nv ic ti on .” USSG § 3C 1.1

. “ A de fen da nt who co m m it s

pe rjury is su bjec t to th is en ha nc em en t, as is a de fen da nt who pr ov id es m at eri al ly fal se

in fo rm at io n to a jud ge or m ag is tra te .” O’ Dell

, 20 4 F.3 d at 83 6 (q uo ta ti on an d in te rn al

ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ A de fen da nt co m m it s pe rjury if, un de r oa th

, [h e or sh e] gi ve s fal se

te st im on y co nc ern in g a m at eri al m at te r wit h th e wil lfu l in te nt to pr ov i de fal se

te st im on y , rat he r th an as a re s u l t o f co nf us io n, m is ta ke

, or fau lt y m em or y .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Offi cer Fau st was av ai la bl e to te st ify at Ade jum o’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. W he n

as ke d, Ade

jum o ag reed th e di st ric t co ur t c o u l d r e l y on th e tra ns cri pt fro m th e

Octo be r 20 he ari ng to res ol ve th e is su e a n d d ecl in ed th e op po rtu ni ty fo r a de no vo

he ari ng be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t. To th e ex te nt Ade jum o arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t’s

rel ia nc e on th e tra ns cri pt fro m th e Octo be r 20 he ari ng was erro r, it was in vi te d, and

he is no w es to pp ed fro m rai si ng th at ob jecti on

. Uni te d St at es v. Je well

, 61 4 F.3 d 91 1,

91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ The do ct rin e of in vi te d erro r ap pl i e s w h e n t h e tri al co ur t

an no un ces it s in te nt io n to em ba rk on a sp eci fic co ur se of act io n an d de fen se co un se l

sp eci fic al ly app ro ve s o f th at co ur se of a ct io n.” Id. at 92 0 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

-3 0-Ade

jum o al so su gg es ts th at by r e l yi n g o n th e tra ns cri pt of th e rev oc at io n

he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t m ay ha ve fo un d th e en ha nc em en t a p p l i e d ba se d on a

pr ob ab le -cau se st an da rd rat he r th an m ak in g th e fin di ng ba se d on a pr ep on de ran ce of

th e ev id en ce. Ade

jum o po in ts to no th in g in th e r e c o r d

, h o wev er, to su gg es t th e

di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ap pl y th e pr op er st an da rd whe n im po si ng th e e n h a n c em en t.

Rel y in g on th e tra ns cri pt —as Ade jum o ag reed it c o u l d

— th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e it s

own in de pe nd en t fin di ng s an d co nc lu de d Ade jum o wil lfu ll y ha d pr ov id ed m at eri al ly

fal se in fo rm at io n to th e m ag is tra te jud ge

. Bec au se “ a di st ric t co ur t’s ch oi ce be twee n

two pe rm is si bl e vi ews of th e ev id en ce can no t be co ns id ered cl earl y erro ne ou s,”

Thu nd ers hi el d, 4 74 F.3d at 5 09 , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t er r.

Ade jum o ne xt a ss ert s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t gi vi ng hi m a 3- le ve l

red uc ti on in hi s of

fen se le ve l fo r acce pt an ce of r e sp on si bi li ty. Acco rd in g to

Ade jum o, hi s is an “ ex tra or di na ry cas e” warra nt in g a re d u c t i o n f or acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib ility ev en w ith the obst ru ct ion -o f-

j ust ic e en ha

nc em en t be ca

use hi s te st im on y

at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng was un rel at ed to th e un de rlyin g of fen se an d be cau se he ha d

pr ov id ed i n f

o r mat io n an d as si st an ce to th e go ve rn m en t bu t rece iv ed no se nt en ci ng

be ne fit as a res ul t.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of an acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

r e d u c ti on fo r cl ear erro r an d wil l rev ers e “ on ly if it is so cl earl y erro ne ou s as t o b e

wit h o ut fo un da ti on .” Uni te d St at es v. W il li am , 68 1 F.3 d 93 6, 93 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

(q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ Ord in ari ly, a de fen da nt who ob st ru ct s jus ti ce is no t en ti tl ed to

th e red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Hut te rer, 70 6 F.3d

92 1, 92 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. It is on ly in “ ex tra or di na ry 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 el ig ib le fo r th e

acce pt an ce of res po ns ib i l i t y r e d u c t io n. Id

. Thi s do es no t m ean , h owe ve r, th at it is

im po ss ib le to rece iv e b ot h a dju st m en ts

.

In de te rm in in g whe th er a cas e is “ ex tra or di na ry ,” se nt en ci ng co ur ts are to lo ok

at “t h e t ot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g th e na tu re of th e [d efen da nt ’s]

-3 1-ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t an d th e d e g r e e of [d efen da nt ’s] acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y .”

Uni te d St at es v. Hon ke n, 18 4 F.3 d 96 1, 96 8 (8 th C i r

. 1 9 9 9 )

. “ [T]he di st ric t co ur t

m us t in qu ire in to th e pa rti cu la r c i r c u msta nc es of th e de fen da nt ’s cas e: was th e

de fen da nt ’s ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t a rel at iv e l y b r i e f o r earl y ab erra ti on , or was it a

m et ho di cal

, co nt in ue d effo rt to ob st ru ct jus ti ce? ” Id

. at 97 2. Alt ho ug h it is rare th at

a d e f e n d an t who ha s ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce wil l no ne th el es s earn a red uc ti on fo r

acce pt an ce of resp on si bi li ty, we no te d in Hon ke n t ha t a d efen da nt ’s “ ot he r po si ti ve

act io ns ” co ul d m ak e hi s cas e “ ex tra or di na ry .” Id

. at 97 3. The types o f co nd uc t

qu al ifyin g as ob st ru ct iv e are nu mer o u s a n d di ve rs e, an d th e de gr ee to whi ch th e

ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t affe ct s th e in ve st ig at io n, pr os ecu ti on , or se nt en ci ng of a

de fen da nt can va ry wid el y

. Add it io na ll y , a de fen da nt m ay acce pt res po ns ib il it y fo r

th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on bu t act in an ob st ru ct iv e way th at is su bs ta nt iv el y un rel at ed

to hi s o ffen se co nd uc t.

The di st ric t co ur t in th is cas e co nc lu de d th at “ [b ]y pe rjuri ng hi m se lf reg ard in g

a m at eri al is su e be fo re Mag is tra te Ju dg e Noe l, Ade jum o di d no t ex hi bi t be ha vi or

co ns is te n t w i t h th e acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ,” an d th eref or e hi s was “ no t an

ex tra or di na ry cas e. ” Th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at Ade jum o “ di d no t vo lu nt ari ly

te rm in at e hi s ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t – pe rjury; no r d i d h e ad m it it .” Thu s, th e di st ric t

co ur t co nc lu de d th a t “[t ]he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces do es no t su gg es t th at

Ade jum o h as de m on st rat ed acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y for hi s o ffen se .”

Wh i le th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered Ade jum o’s co nd uc t at t h e

rev oc at io n he ari ng an d whe th er he vo lu nt ary ad m it te d hi s ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t, we

no te se ve ral ot he r fact or s rel ev an t to th e Hon ke n an al y si s th e co ur t di d no t co ns id er.

Ade jum o ti m el y pl ead ed gu il t y a n d tru th fu ll y ad m it te d th e co nd uc t co m pr is in g th e

of fen se of co nv ic ti on

. He at te m pt ed to co op erat e wit h th e go ve rn m en t, m eet in g wit h

th em se ve ral ti m es

. In a writ te n st at em en t to th e pr ob at io n of fic e da te d Octo be r 12

, 20 11

, he ad m it te d hi s co nd uc t as to th e of fen se s of co nv ic ti on an d ex pr es se d he was

“tru ly rem or se fu l fo r th e ha rm he ha s wro ug ht on al l in vo lv ed

, in cl ud in g th e

Gov ern m en t.” He ex pr es se d th e sa m e rem or se du rin g hi s al lo cu ti on at hi s se nt en ci ng

-3 2-he ari ng

. Add it io na ll y , th e ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t was un rel a t e d i n su bs ta nc e to th e

of fen se co nd uc t fo r whi ch Ade jum o pl ead ed gu il ty. The se are al l fact or s th at weig h

in fav or of a cas e b ei ng co ns id ered “ ex tra or di na ry .”

W he th er th is is on e of th os e ex tra or di na ry cas es in whi ch a de fen da nt can earn

a red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ev en aft er rece iv in g an en ha nc em en t fo r

ob s t r u c t io n of jus ti ce is

, in ou r vi ew, a rel at iv el y cl os e qu es ti on

. Yet we de fer to

di st ric t co ur ts in th es e fact -in te ns iv e m at te rs , in cl ud in g as se ss m en ts of cred ib il it y an d

si nc eri ty t ha t th e di st ric t co u r t is be st eq ui pp ed to co ns id er. W it h th at de fere nc e in

m in d, we can no t sa y th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on he re was “ so cl earl y erro ne ou s as to

be wit ho ut fo un da ti on .” See W il li am , 68 1 F.3 d at 93 6 (q uo t a t i o n om it te d)

. The

di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered th a t A d ejum o ne it he r vo lu nt ari ly te rm in at ed hi s

ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t no r ad m it te d it

. In ad di ti on , Ade jum o’s fal se te st im on y oc cu rred

aft er hi s gu il ty pl ea, a fact or we ha ve fo un d “ wou ld al m os t cert ai nl y be

di sq ua li fy in g.” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 53 9 F.3 d 83 5, 84 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in de nyin g Ade jum o an ad

jus tm en t fo r

acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

.

The di st ric t co ur t as se ss ed Ade jum o a 3- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r US S G

§ 3B 1.1 (b ) fo r be in g a m an ag er or su pe rv is or in a cri m in al act iv it y in vo lv in g fiv e or

m or e pa rti ci pa nt s. O n a p pe al

, Ade jum o do es no t di sp ut e th at hi s cri m in al act iv it y

in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e pa rti ci pa nt s. He co nt en ds

, ho wev er, th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

rel y in g on th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at th e tri al of Oke ay ai nn eh an d Ade ni ran be cau se

he was no t p res en t an d was no t p ro vi de d a n o pp or tu ni ty to chal le ng e th e ev id en ce.

He fu rth er as se rts th at ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y rel ie d on th e tri al te st im on y , th is te st im on y wa s in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h he ha d co nt ro l ov er an y on e el se or

rece iv ed a la rg er s ha re o f th e p ro ceed s.

At hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t st at ed it s i n t en t to ha ve th e co ur t

r e ly on th e tri al te st im on y of Ade jum o’s co -d efen da nt s. The di st ric t c o u r t g a v e

Ade jum o an op po rtu ni ty t o ob ject, bu t Ade

jum o acq ui es ced . Accor di ng ly, we fin d

-3 3-Ade

jum o has waiv ed an y ob

jecti on he ha d to th e d is tri ct co ur t relying on te st im on y

fro m th e tri al

, pr ecl ud in g ap pe ll at e rev ie w. See Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 28 9 F.3 d

52 4, 5 26 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

In de te rm in in g th e en ha nc em en t ap pl ie d, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d, am on g ot he r

f a c t o r s , th at “ Ade

jum o m et wit h an d ga ve di rect io n to recr ui ts an d ex erci se d

m an ag em en t re sp on si bi li ty ove r as se ts of t he co ns pi racy.” In de ed , M an da te st ifi ed

th at it was Ade

jum o who pi ck ed hi m up fro m th e ai rp or t whe n he arri ve d fro m

Atl an ta an d pa id fo r hi s ho te l du rin g hi s st ay

. Man da br ou gh t wit h hi m m ul ti pl e

frau du le nt do cu m en ts

, whi ch he ga ve to Ade jum o, an d it was Ade

jum o who de ci de d

whi ch on es to us e each da y

. Ade jum o dr ov e Man da to ba nk s whe re Man da ob ta in ed

cas h ad va nc es us in g frau du le nt cred it card s, an d Man da tu rn ed al l of th e m on ey ov er

to Ade jum o. Ade

jum o la te r ga ve Man da a pe rcen ta ge of th e pr oc eed s fo r hi s effo rts

. Ade jum o als o to ok Man da to m al ls to pu rch as e g ift card s wi th th e frau du le nt cred it

card s. Man da ret ur ne d to Mi nn es ot a th e ne xt m on th to co nd uc t an ot he r week ’s wor th

of si m il ar frau du le nt tra ns act io ns wit h Ade jum o. Ano th er wit ne ss , Ja cq ue li ne Cl ack

,

te st ifi ed Adeju m o was “ th e m in d b eh in d wh at I was d oi ng .”

W e co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl ea r l y err in as se ss in g Ade jum o a

3- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r be in g a m an ag er or su pe rv is or . “ A m an ag er or su pe rv is or

ne ed on ly ha ve m an ag ed or su pe rv is ed on e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt ” in cri m in al act iv it y , an d

“ th e en ha nc em en t m ay ap pl y ev en if th e m an ag em en t act iv it y was li m it ed to a si ng le

tra ns act io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Zim m er, 29 9 F.3 d 71 0, 72 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ta ti on s

om it te d)

. At a m in im

um , Ade jum o ex erci se d m an ag eri al or s u p e r v is or y au th or it y

ov er Man da du rin g Nov em be r an d Decem

be r 20 09 —wi th in th e ti m e pe rio d to whi ch

Ade jum o st ip ul at ed he was in vo lv ed in ba nk frau d. Ac c or di ng ly, th e di st ric t co ur t

di d n ot err.

Alt ho ug h Ade

jum o st ip ul at ed in hi s pl ea ag reem en t th at he an d ot he rs ob ta in ed

or at te m pt ed to ob ta in in ex ces s of $1 m il li on , he di d no t co nc ed e he was pe rs on al ly

res po ns ib le fo r th e en ti re am ou nt

, an d he di d no t pl ead gu il ty to a co ns pi racy. At hi s

-3 4-pl ea hear in g, th e go ve rn m en t to ld Ade jum o and th e co ur t t ha t, wh il e it be li ev ed th e

am ou nt of lo ss was m or e th an $1 m il li on bu t le ss th an $2 .5 m il li on , Ade jum o wou ld

be al lo wed to di sp ut e th e lo ss am ou nt at se nt en ci ng

. W he n Ade jum o ob jecte d to th e

am ou nt of lo ss reco m

m en de d in th e pr e s e n 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 reem en t. Bec au se he so ag r e e d

, Ade jum o is pr ecl ud ed fro m di sp ut in g th e lo ss am ou nt on ap pe al

. See Tho m ps on , 28 9

F.3 d a t 5 26 –2 7.

Fi na ll y , Ade

jum o rece iv ed two cri m in a l h i st or y po in ts fo r co m m it ti ng “ th e

in st an t offe ns e whi le un de r an y cri m in al jus ti ce sen te nc e” bas ed on th e fin di ng th at

he was on pr ob at io n fo r a 20 03 co nv ic ti on fo r fin an ci al -tr an sa ct io n card frau d at th e

ti m e th e in st an t of

fen se oc cu rred

. See USSG § 4A1 .1(d ). “ In st an t of fen se ” in cl ud es

“ an y rel ev an t co nd uc t.” Id

. § 4A1 .1 cm t. n.4

. Neit he r pa rty di sp ut es th at Ade jum o’s

pr ob at io n for the fi na

nc ial-t ran sa ct io n card frau d co nv ic ti on en de d on Apr il 20

, 20 07

. In de te rm in in g Ade

jum o’s cri m in al hi st or y , th e di st ric t co ur t fo u n d “[t ]he in st an t

of fen se be ga n in 20 06 .” Ade jum o arg ue s th e in st an t of fen se di d no t be gi n un ti l 20 08

,

as st ip ul at ed in th e p le a ag reem en t.

Ade jum o c on ced es he di d n ot rai se th is arg um en t b el ow, s o ou r rev ie w is for

pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Goo dr ic h, 75 4 F

. 3 d 56 9, 57 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ Und er pl ai n e rro r rev ie w, i t is th e de fen da nt ’s bu rd en to pro ve (1) th ere was erro r, (2 ) th at

was pl ai n, an d (3 ) affe ct ed su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Id

. “ An erro r is pl ai n whe n it is ‘clear

or ob vi ou s, rat he r th an su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e.’” Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n, 71 4

F.3 d 10 81

, 10 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Pu ck et t v. Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S. 12 9, 13 5

(2 00 9) ). W e or di na ril y ex erci se ou r di sc re t i o n t o c o rrec t th e erro r on ly if th e erro r

“ affe ct ed th e o ut co m e o f th e d is tri ct co ur t p ro ceed in gs .” Id

.

Ade jum o arg ue s it was pl ai n erro r fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to fin d of fen se co nd uc t

oc cu rr e d o u t s id e th e pa rti es ’ st ip ul at io n in th e pl ea ag reem en t, whi ch refe ren ced a

20 08 st art d a t e , wit ho ut ta ki ng ev id en ce or m ak in g sp eci fic fin di ng s to su pp or t it s

-3 5-de ci si on

. Here, we can no t c on cl ud e an y erro r on th e pa rt of th e di st ric t co ur t was

“ cl ear or ob vi ou s, rat he r th an su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e.” Eve n in hi s ob jecti on s

to th e PSR, Ade

jum o req ue st ed th e di st ric t co ur t fin d hi s t h r e e pr io r co nv ic ti on s,

in c l u d in g th e 20 03 co nv ic ti on , were rel ev an t co nd uc t to th e in st an t of fen se

. The

d i s tri ct co ur t de cl in ed to do so , fin di ng th at th e in st an t of fen se be ga n in 20 06

. In

Ade jum o’s PSR, th e rel ev an t da te s of hi s of fen se are id en ti fie d as 20 06 to 20 11

, an d

Ade jum o di d no t ob

ject. Ja cq ue li ne C l a c k ’s te st im on y at tri al al so reas on ab ly

su pp or te d th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng

. W e co nc lu de th e st art da te o f A d e jum o’s

in st an t of fen se was su bjec t to reas o na bl e di sp ut e an d, th eref or e, an y po ss ib le erro r

was no t p la in

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Acco rd in gl y , t he jud gm en t i s af fir m ed in pa rt, a nd rev ers ed an d rem an de d in

pa rt f or fur th er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-3 6-