Court Opinion

ID: 9957136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 19:01:08.237801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.205488
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10821    Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 04/03/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10821
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       BOLAJI KAZEEM OWOLABI,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00360-JPB-RDC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10821     Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 04/03/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10821

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               A forty-eight-count indictment charged Bolaji Kazeem
       Owolabi with sixteen counts of wire fraud, sixteen counts of aggra-
       vated identify theft, and twelve counts of theft of government
       funds. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 1028A, 1343. Owolabi pleaded guilty to
       one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.
       At the sentencing phase, the proper calculation of the United States
       Sentencing Guidelines range was in dispute. Owolabi contended
       that the guidelines range was 81–95 months’ imprisonment. The
       district court arrived at a guidelines range of 132–159 months’ im-
       prisonment and imposed a middle-of-the-guidelines sentence of
       144 months’ imprisonment. The district court also ordered three
       years of supervised release and restitution of $2,063,721.
               All of Owolabi’s arguments on appeal attack the district
       court’s guidelines calculation. But we need not address those argu-
       ments. Owolabi’s burden on appeal is not only to prove that the
       district court committed an error but also to establish that any er-
       ror was not harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). In the sentencing
       context, that means Owolabi must establish either that (1) the dis-
       trict court would have imposed a lesser sentence had it agreed with
       Owolabi’s guidelines calculation or (2) the 144-month sentence is
       unlawful if Owolabi’s guidelines calculation is correct. See United
       States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1348–50 (11th Cir. 2006).
USCA11 Case: 23-10821      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 04/03/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10821               Opinion of the Court                         3

               Option one is off the table. The district court said that it
       “would have still sentenced [Owolabi] to the 144 months, even if
       [it] had ruled differently as to” Owolabi’s guidelines arguments.
               Option two is either forfeited or waived. Owolabi makes no
       argument in his opening brief that his 144-month sentence is pro-
       cedurally or substantively unreasonable under his proposed guide-
       lines range. He has not filed a reply brief, so the government’s con-
       tention that any error was harmless has gone entirely unrebutted.
       Even if Owolabi tried to contest that point, he’d almost certainly
       lose. The district court considered 144 months’ imprisonment rea-
       sonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), no matter the guidelines recom-
       mendation, because of Owolabi’s repeated misconduct, the sever-
       ity of the harm his offenses caused others, and the lack of remorse
       Owolabi displayed during his allocution. That explanation likely
       rendered the sentence procedurally reasonable. See United States v.
       Grushko, 50 F.4th 1, 17–18 (11th Cir. 2022). And district courts’ dis-
       cretion to weigh the Section 3553(a) factors makes it unlikely that
       we would have found this sentence substantively unreasonable.
       See, e.g., United States v. Early, 686 F.3d 1219, 1221–23 (11th Cir.
       2012) (affirming 113-month upward variance).
             Owolabi has failed to show that any error (if one occurred)
       was not harmless. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.