U.S. v. Fafowora

Citation881 F.2d 1088
Decision Date21 March 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-3011,88-3011
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. Steve FAFOWORA, a/k/a Olatunde Fafowora, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of columbia.

Before WALD, C.J., and EDWARDS and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant's claim under the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice was considered on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was briefed by the parties and argued orally by counsel. On January 13, 1989, we certified this question to the Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Fafowora, 865 F.2d 360 (D.C.Cir.1989). On February 21, 1989, the Supreme Court dismissed the certified question. United States v. Fafowora, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1105, 103 L.Ed.2d 171 (1989). Therefore, this court has given the issue full consideration. It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that appellant's convictions be affirmed for the reasons stated In re Forfeiture Hearing as to Caplin & Drysdale, 837 F.2d 637 (4th Cir.1988) (en banc ), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 363, 102 L.Ed.2d 352 (1988). *

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.

* Chief Judge Wald would find that under the appropriate Sixth Amendment analysis the government's interest in seizing forfeitable assets to prevent their dissipation does not outweigh the defendant's interest in using a reasonable portion of those assets, in the absence of other funds, to retain counsel of choice. See United States v. Monsanto, 852 F.2d 1400, 1402-04 (2d Cir.1988) (Opinion of Feinberg, C.J.); United States v. Unit No. 7 and Unit No. 8 of Shop In the Grove Condominium, 853 F.2d 1445 (8th Cir.1988).

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Nixon v. U.S., 92-5021
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 17, 1992
    ...... Mindful that this appeal from the District Court comes to us from a grant of summary judgment, we must affirm the District Court's order only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the United ......
  • North v. Walsh
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 25, 1989
    ......us[ing] FOIA as an adjunct discovery device." Brief for the Appellees at 34. 10 .         We reject this contention. An attempt to ......
  • U.S. v. Ingram
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • December 17, 1996
    ......Adams, 26 F.3d 702, 704 (7th Cir.1994); United States v. Strahan, 984 F.2d 155, 159 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Fafowora, 865 F.2d 360, 362 (D.C.Cir.), certified question dismissed, 489 U.S. 1002, aff'd, 881 F.2d 1088 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989). Such ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT