U.S. v. Olatunji, 88-1851

Citation872 F.2d 1161
Decision Date21 April 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-1851,88-1851
Parties53 Ed. Law Rep. 407 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Koya OLATUNJI a/k/a "Femi Olatunji" a/k/a "Olatunji Ademoluyi".
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Michael M. Baylson, Walter S. Batty, Jr., U.S. Atty., Chief of Appeals, David M. Howard (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Creed C. Black, Jr. (argued), Samuel C. Milkman, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STAPLETON and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COWEN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal seeks review of an order of the district court dismissing Count Two of a four count indictment returned against defendant-appellee Koya Olatunji ("Olatunji"). The government contends that the district court erred in dismissing Count Two which charges Olatunji with mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341. We agree and will reverse.

I.

This case has been described as a "marriage fraud" case in which the government asserts that Olatunji "devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain student aid from the United States Department of Education by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations...." App. at 11.

The government's theory in this case is that Olatunji, a citizen of Nigeria, married a United States citizen, Sonja Wood, for the sole purpose of gaining permanent resident alien status; that Olatunji and Wood falsely represented to the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") that they were living together; that they concealed from the INS that they married for the sole purpose of obtaining permanent resident alien status; and that he then obtained an Alien Registration Receipt Card (commonly known as a "green card") by submitting the false information to the INS and that he thereby received student aid to which he would not have otherwise been entitled. Id.

Accordingly, the government returned a four count indictment against Olatunji. Counts One, Three and Four all pertain to events which occurred in September and October of 1983, when Olatunji obtained permanent resident alien status from the INS. Count One charges Olatunji with conspiracy to make false statements and to conceal material facts from the INS in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 (1982). The underlying false statements are charged as a separate substantive offense in Count Count Four charges Olatunji with aiding and abetting Wood in presenting to the INS a falsified "Petition to Classify Status of an Alien Relative for Issuance of Immigrant Visa" in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1546 and 2 (1982). App. at 17.

Three in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001 and 2 (1982). App. at 15.

Count Two of the indictment, which the district court dismissed and which is the subject of the appeal, charges Olatunji with mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 (1982).

Prior to the trial, Olatunji moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b), to dismiss Count Two. App. at 19. Olatunji argues that the indictment fails to allege an offense under section 1341 since a mail fraud offense is alleged against the Department of Education ("D.O.E.") "by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations," however, "the only false statements pleaded were ones made to the Immigration & Naturalization Service ... in the course of Olatunji's earlier efforts to obtain permanent resident alien status." Brief for Appellee at 2. Olatunji claims, therefore, that Count Two is fatally defective since it does not allege that "false and fraudulent pretenses and representations" were made directly to the D.O.E. App. at 24. As a holder of a green card issued by the INS, he argues that he was eligible for student aid as a matter of law. Consequently, the government could not allege that false statements were made to the D.O.E., the ultimate victim.

The district court granted the motion and dismissed Count Two without prejudice to the right of the United States to seek a superceding indictment. App. at 42. The court found the indictment defective "because the government fails to allege that any false statements were made to the Department of Education in order to obtain the aid." App. at 40. The government now appeals to this Court.

II.

The district court's dismissal of an indictment raises a question of law over which we have plenary review. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 (1982).

The exact language of Count Two is crucial to the resolution of this case. The text of Count Two is as follows:

"COUNT TWO

"THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:

"1 Paragraphs one through seven of Count One are incorporated herein by reference.

"2. At all times material to this Indictment, a Pell Grant was a financial aid grant which was made from the United States Department of Education to eligible students at institutions of higher education to defray the cost of tuition and related expenses.

"3. At all times material to this Indictment, a Guaranteed Student Loan was a financial aid program for eligible students at institutions of higher education in which the United States Department of Education guaranteed to lenders that it would pay the full amount of a student's loan plus interest, in case of default, and would pay all interest and a special allowance while the student was in school and during a subsequent grace period.

"4. At all times material to this Indictment, in order to receive guaranteed student loans or Pell grants (hereinafter 'student aid'), a student was required to be a citizen or national of the United States; a permanent resident of the United States; in the United States for other than a temporary purpose and able to provide evidence from the INS of his intent to become a permanent resident; or a permanent resident of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands.

"5. From in or about September, 1983 through in or about August, 1986, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant

KOYA OLATUNJI,

a/k/a 'Femi Olatunji,'

a/k/a 'Olatunji Ademoluyi,'

devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain student Plan and Purpose of the Scheme and Artifice

aid from the United States Department of Education by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, well knowing that such pretenses and representations were false and fraudulent when made.

"6. It was the plan and purpose of the scheme and artifice for KOYA OLATUNJI to:

(a) marry a United States citizen for the sole and limited purpose of gaining the status of permanent resident alien;

(b) obtain a 'green card' by submitting false and fraudulent information to the INS concerning the marriage; and

(c) receive student aid to which he would not have been entitled were it not for his obtaining the status of permanent resident alien;

thus defrauding the United States Department of Education out of $9,586.

Manner and Means of Carrying out the Scheme and Artifice

"7. It was part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI, a citizen of Nigeria, would and did approach Sonja Wood, a United States citizen, and offer her money to induce Sonja Wood to marry KOYA OLATUNJI for the sole and limited purpose of obtaining lawful permanent resident status in the United States.

"8. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI and Sonja Wood would and did marry.

"9. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI and Sonja Wood would and did reside apart.

"10. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI and Sonja Wood would and did file and cause to be filed a 'Petition To Classify Status of Alien Relative For Issuance Of Immigrant Visa' (INS Form I-130) with the INS.

"11. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI and Sonja Wood would and did file and cause to be filed an 'Application For Status As Permanent Resident' (INS Form I-485) with the INS.

"12. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI and Sonja Wood would and did appear at an interview conducted by a designated examiner of the INS at Philadelphia, and that at the interview, defendant KOYA OLATUNJI and Sonja Wood would and did conceal from the designated examiner the fact that their marriage was for the sole and limited purpose of obtaining lawful permanent resident status for KOYA OLATUNJI.

"13. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI and Sonja Wood would and did falsely represent on the INS Form I-130 and the INS Form I-485 and orally to the examiner at their interview that they were residing together, when in truth and in fact, as they then and there well knew, they did not and had never resided together.

"14. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI would and did attempt to receive an Alien Registration Receipt Card (INS Form I-151 or INS Form I-551), commonly referred to as a 'green card,' based on his marriage to Sonja Wood, which card evidenced his admission to the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien.

"15. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI would and did state in applications for student aid that he possessed a citizenship status which made him eligible to receive such aid.

"16. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice that defendant KOYA OLATUNJI would and did obtain $9,586 in student aid from the United States Department of Education for the following school years:

                SCHOOL YEAR  SCHOOL              TYPE OF AID   AMOUNT
                1984/1985    Community College   Pell Grant    $1,475
                              of Philadelphia
                1984/1985    Community College   Guaranteed    $1,300
                              of Philadelphia    Student Loan
                1985/1986    Community College   Guaranteed
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Young v. WEST COAST INDUST. RELATIONS ASS'N, INC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • April 17, 1991
    ...also U.S. v. Schwartz, 899 F.2d 243, 247 (3rd Cir.1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 259, 112 L.Ed.2d 217; U.S. v. Olatunji, 872 F.2d 1161, 1165 (3rd Cir.1989). Judge Sloviter, in a concurring opinion, counseled that the majority's dictum "raises more questions than it answers" an......
  • U.S. v. Fumo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 26, 2007
    ...material facts and the devising of a scheme for obtaining money or property by such statements or concealments." United States v. Olatunji, 872 F.2d 1161, 1167 (3d Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398, 410 (10th Cir.1977)). For example, the Third Circuit held a defendant'......
  • US v. Conley, Crim. No. 91-178.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 3, 1993
    ...the defendant to prepare his defense and to invoke double jeopardy in the event of a subsequent prosecution." United States v. Olatunji, 872 F.2d 1161, 1166 (3d Cir.1989) (quoting Rankin, 870 F.2d at United States v. Shirk, 981 F.2d 1382, 1389 (3d Cir.1993), petition for cert. filed, 61 U.S......
  • U.S. v. Mariani
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • February 16, 2000
    ...pled with sufficient detail to support a conviction under the mail fraud statute.13 The government maintains that United States v. Olatunji, 872 F.2d 1161 (3d Cir. 1989), sanctions mail fraud indictments that merely contain the elements of the offense and repeat the statutory language. In O......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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