United States v. Adejumo
| Decision Date | 25 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | 12–3009,Nos. 12–2986,12–3010.,s. 12–2986 |
| Citation | 772 F.3d 513 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Adetokunbo Olubunmi ADEJUMO, also known as Malik, also known as D, also known as Tods, also known as Tokunbo, also known as T, Defendant–Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Julian Okeayainneh, also known as Julius Inneh, also known as Julian Nosa Inneh, also known as J.J., also known as Julian Okeaya–Inneh, Defendant–Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Olugbenga Temidago Adeniran, also known as Dennis Lok, also known as Dayo Olugbega, also known as Andre T. Andeiran, also known as Andeniran T. Dayo, also known as Oluwafemi Olarewaju Osibodu, also known as Dayo, also known as Dre, also known as Olugbenga Temidayo Adeniran, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jordan S. Kushner, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant, Adetokunbo Adejumo.
Jennifer Marie Macaulay, argued, St. Paul, MN, for Appellant, Julian Okeayainneh.
Sarah M. MacGillis, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant, Olugbenga Adeniran.
Jeffrey S. Paulsen, Assistant United States Attorney, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
On March 8, 2011, Adetokunbo Adejumo, Julian Okeayainneh, Olugbenga Adeniran and nine others were charged in a 57–count indictment with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, as well as substantive counts of bank fraud, mail- and wire fraud, identity theft, money laundering, and trafficking in false authentication features. Okeayainneh and Adeniran, along with two others, proceeded to trial.1 After an 11–day trial, Okeayainneh was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and 25 substantive fraud-related counts. He was acquitted on one count of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. Adeniran was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and 8 substantive fraud-related counts. Adejumo pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. Okeayainneh and Adeniran appeal their convictions and sentences. Adejumo appeals his sentence. After careful review of the record and of all issues raised on appeal, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
“We present the facts in a light most favorable to the verdicts, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence that support the jury's verdicts.” United States v. Ramon–Rodriguez, 492 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir.2007). In 2009, various federal and state agencies that had been independently investigating fraud in the Minneapolis metro area joined forces in a massive criminal investigation nicknamed Operation Starburst. The investigation led to the indictment of more than forty people on charges of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, most of whom resided in Minnesota. Participants in the scheme used stolen identity information to create counterfeit identifications for use in committing bank fraud. The bank fraud took two main forms. In one form, counterfeit identification documents were used to open accounts at various federally insured banks, which were then used as conduits for cashing stolen or counterfeit checks. The bulk of these proceeds went to Okeayainneh and co-conspirator Olidipo Coker.2 In its other form, the bank fraud involved stolen credit cards that were used to purchase gift cards or obtain cash advances.
On January 7, 2010, Adeniran came to the attention of Officer Joel Moore, an Edina, Minnesota, police officer who was patrolling the parking lot of Southdale Center in Edina. Officer Moore testified at trial he observed an idling parked vehicle with two men inside. One of the men was Coker. A third man entered and then quickly exited the vehicle; he was subsequently identified as Adeniran. After contacting mall security, Officer Moore determined that Adeniran had purchased three $500 gift cards from the Southdale Center customer-service kiosk using a stolen credit card. Adeniran was arrested. The vehicle and the other men were searched, but Coker and the other man were allowed to leave. The stolen credit card Adeniran had used was not recovered from him.
At the time of his arrest, Adeniran had identification information for at least three additional people on his person, including dates of birth, social security numbers, addresses, and credit-card numbers. While in custody, Adeniran swallowed a second piece of paper containing victim information. From jail, Adeniran called Coker, Adejumo, and others. The phone calls were recorded. In them, he talked about the fraud he had committed and his destruction of evidence; he also attempted to find someone to tender bail.
After Adeniran's arrest, investigators determined he had committed similar frauds around the same time. They learned that in November and December 2009, Adeniran had taken out cash advances at U.S. Bank and TCF Bank and purchased gift cards at a customer-service booth at the Mall of America, each time using a stolen credit card. On May 20, 2010, Adeniran pleaded guilty in Minnesota state court to identity theft for using the fake credit card at Southdale Center.
On November 3, 2010, Angela Grigsby was arrested in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, when she tried to withdraw money from a fraudulent bank account she had opened at Coker's direction. Grigsby provided investigators information that allowed law enforcement to obtain a search warrant for a storage locker in California Okeayainneh had rented under a false name since 2006.
On December 17, 2010, law enforcement executed the search warrant for Okeayainneh's storage locker. The locker contained stolen and counterfeit checks with a face value of over $18 million. It also contained blank check stock, photographs of co-conspirators—including Adeniran—and documents related to credit-card fraud against Chase Bank. The locker also held 500 credit cards in the names of various people and equipment for manufacturing fraudulent credit cards. In total, agents found forms of identification for 8700 different people in the storage locker. Okeayainneh arrived during the execution of the search warrant. Although he initially told law enforcement the locker was not his, he had the key to the locker in his car. Okeayainneh was arrested. Subsequently subpoenaed records and security video tapes showed that Okeayainneh accessed the storage locker on a daily basis, often several times a day.
Following his arrest, Okeayainneh gave a proffer statement to law enforcement during which he made several admissions. Despite giving the proffer, Okeayainneh ultimately decided to go to trial. Because the district court agreed with the government that Okeayainneh had provided false information during his proffer, his statements were admitted as evidence at trial against him.
Law enforcement officers from various state and federal agencies and internal fraud investigators from the defrauded financial institutions testified at trial. Co-conspirators who had pleaded guilty testified about their respective roles in the conspiracy as well as the roles of Okeayainneh, Coker, Adeniran, and Adejumo.
Okeayainneh and Adeniran appeal the district court's denial of their motions to dismiss the third superseding indictment on Speedy Trial Act grounds and their motions for judgment of acquittal on Count 1 of the third superseding indictment—the bank-fraud conspiracy count. Okeayainneh appeals the district court's decision to admit into evidence the government's “conspiracy chart” and its decision to allow the government to introduce statements he made during his proffer. All three defendants raise issues related to sentencing. We address each defendant's arguments in turn.
On September 29, 2011, Okeayainneh and Adeniran appeared before the court to discuss the status of the case and to schedule a trial date.3 The court proposed a February 7, 2012, trial date. Both Okeayainneh and Adeniran waived their speedy-trial rights on the record. The district court set the trial for February 7, 2012, but failed to give its reasons either orally or in writing why the ends of justice would be served by the continuance.
In January 2012, Okeayainneh and Adeniran each filed a motion to dismiss the third superseding indictment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2), arguing the district court did not state adequately on the record, when continuing the trial, its reasons why a continuance outweighed the best interests of them and the public in a speedy trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In its response to their motions, the government urged the district court to put its findings on the record prior to ruling on the motions. On January 24, 2012, the district court issued an order explaining that, because of the unusual complexity of the case, “the ends of justice served by the granting of the continuances in this matter outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendants in a speedy trial.” The district court then excluded the period from September 29, 2011, through February 7, 2012, from the Speedy Trial Act computations.
Later in the day on January 24, 2012, a magistrate judge held a hearing on the defendants' motions. Relying on the transcript from the September 29 status conference, the magistrate judge recommended denying the motions to dismiss, finding that the district court “implicitly” made the necessary findings during the hearing. On February 1, 2012, the district court adopted the recommendation and denied the motions.
“The [Speedy Trial] Act requires that the trial begin within 70 days after a defendant is charged or makes an initial appearance unless the running of the time is stopped for reasons set out in the statute.” United States v. Lucas, 499 F.3d 769, 782 (8th Cir.2007) (en banc). Among the statutorily approved reasons for days to be excluded from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Beckman
...the defendant's undertaking, foreseeability to the defendant, and furtherance of the conspiracy for clear error.’ ” United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513, 533 (8th Cir.2014) (quoting Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d at 677 ).1. Beckmana. Advisory Guidelines CalculationBeckman maintains the district c......
-
United States v. Nguyen
...fraudulently used the identifying information of Q.N., C.P., and T.N. to receive SSI and other benefits. See United States v. Adejumo , 772 F.3d 513, 528 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Okeayainneh v. United States , 575 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1869, 191 L.Ed.2d 742 (2015) (considering ......
-
United States v. Slager
...but significant obstruction); United States v. Wolverine , 584 F. App'x 646, 649 (9th Cir. 2014) (same); with United States v. Adejumo , 772 F.3d 513, 529 (8th Cir. 2014) (enhancement is inappropriate based upon attempted, but significant obstruction); United States v. Griffin , 310 F.3d 10......
-
United States v. Johnson
...district court rules on a defendant's motion to dismiss under § 3162(a)(2)." Id. at 507, 126 S.Ct. 1976 ; see also United States v. Adejumo , 772 F.3d 513, 522 (8th Cir. 2014) ("[W]e have previously held that the district court is not required to make a contemporaneous record of its ends-of......
-
Trials
...750 F.3d 642, 649-50 (7th Cir. 2014) (plea and immunity agreements interpreted under ordinary contract law principles); U.S. v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513, 526 (8th Cir. 2014) (immunity agreements enforced under contract law principles); McKnight v. Torres, 563 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2009) (sam......