Court Opinion

ID: 9385156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 00:00:22.188406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.280359
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40864        Document: 00516702423             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                      No. 21-40864                               April 5, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Adedayo Hakeem Sanusi,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:20-CR-172-1

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, Duncan, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Adedayo Hakeem Sanusi pleaded guilty to possession of 15 or more
   access devices, aggravated identity theft, and illegal possession of device-
   making equipment. The district court varied upwardly from the guidelines
   range of imprisonment and imposed a total sentence of 84 months in prison.
   Sanusi appeals his sentence.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40864      Document: 00516702423          Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/05/2023

                                    No. 21-40864

          Sanusi asserts that the district court erred in applying an enhancement
   pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) on the basis that his offense conduct
   involved sophisticated means. He argues that his conduct was unexceptional.
   We review his claim of error, which he preserved for appeal, for clear error.
   See United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684, 692 (5th Cir. 2013).
          The district court’s finding that Sanusi’s fraudulent scheme involved
   sophisticated means is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United
   States v. Miller, 906 F.3d 373, 380 (5th Cir. 2018); Valdez, 726 F.3d at 692.
   As part of his scheme, he generated false identification documents, assumed
   people’s identities, produced unauthorized and counterfeit credit cards, and
   used the altered credit cards for fraudulent transactions. In addition, Sanusi
   utilized internet platforms to talk to victims, impersonate various people, and
   obtain money and access to accounts. He used his victims’ identities to open
   accounts and obtain credit cards, acquire loans, and attempt to buy property.
   Also, he sent wire transfers from dubious business entities connected to him
   to unknown recipients abroad. While Sanusi suggests that no sophistication
   was shown because aspects of his scheme were not particularly complex, the
   overall scheme, including the multiple methods that he utilized to conceal his
   conduct, supports that the district court properly applied the adjustment. See
   Miller, 906 F.3d at 380; Valdez, 726 F.3d at 695.
          Sanusi also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
   He asserts that the guidelines range accounted for the factors that the district
   court invoked to justify the upward variance and alleges that the district court
   did not properly support its decision to vary. We review his claim for abuse
   of discretion. See United States v. Vargas, 21 F.4th 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2021).
          The record establishes that the district court gave fact-specific reasons
   for varying upward and that its reasons were consistent with the 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.

                                          2
Case: 21-40864      Document: 00516702423          Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/05/2023

                                    No. 21-40864

   2006). The district court could consider factors that were incorporated by
   the Sentencing Guidelines in deciding that an upward variance was proper.
   See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008); United States
   v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809-11 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court was in a
   superior position to determine the importance of particular facts under
   § 3553(a), and we must uphold the sentence imposed even if we reasonably
   could hold that a different sentence was proper. See Gall v. United States, 552
   U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th
   Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Sanusi is not entitled to relief merely because he
   believes that the § 3553(a) factors would have been equally served by a lesser
   sentence and that the district court erred in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.
   See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Under the totality of the circumstances, the degree
   of the variance was not so disproportionate so as to overcome the factors that
   supported its imposition. See Brantley, 537 F.3d at 349.
          Thus, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                         3