United States v. Adejumo, No. 12-2986 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Adejumo, Okeayainneh, and Adeniran were convicted of various charges related to their involvement in a scheme using stolen identity information to create counterfeit identifications for use in committing bank fraud. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the third superseding indictment where the factors relied upon by the district court in making its ends-of-justice determination were proper; while a court generally should make the findings required by 18 U.S.C. (h)(8)(A) at the time it grants the continuance, the Speedy Trial Act does not require the court to make a contemporaneous record. The court also concluded that the evidence presented at trial was more than sufficient to support Okeayainneh's conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud; when, as here, the government's evidence of a defendant's guilt is so overwhelming, any error related to the admission of a summary chart is harmless; the district court did not err in admitting the statements Okeayainneh made during a proffer session at trial; without any evidence to support the finding that the false statements substantially obstructed or impeded the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense, it was clear error to impose a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice; and the court rejected Okeayainneh's remaining claims of error in regards to his sentence. After addressing the remaining claims of error alleged by Adeniran and Adejumo, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. While the better practice is for the district court to put its ends-of-justice findings on the record at or near the time it grants a continuance, the Speedy Trial Act does not require a contemporaneous record and the district court's findings, issued after the continuance, were based on the proper factors and the district court did not err in denying defendants' motion to dismiss; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Okeayainneh's conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud; while the district court's decision to admit a chart of the conspiracy as substantive evidence was erroneous because the chart contained a photo of defendant Okeayainneh with a caption listing him as leader of the conspiracy, the error was harmless in light of defendant's cross-examination of the witness presenting the chart and the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt; no error in admitting Okeayainneh' admissions during his proffer as he essentially gave up his Fifth Amendment right to challenge use of the information by entering into an informal immunity agreement; no error in imposing sentencing enhancements against Okeayainneh for amount of loss, number of victims, role in the offense and obstruction of justice; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Adeniran's conviction for a single conspiracy to commit bank fraud; no error in imposing a sentencing enhancement against defendant Adeniran for use of sophisticated means; however, the evidence did not support an enhancement for a management role in the offense, and it was error to impose an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(b); without this enhancement, there was insufficient evidence to find that defendant Adeniran was responsible for at least $50 million in loss to at least 250 victims, and on remand, the district court should make the individualized determination of what loss was reasonably foreseeable to him; with respect to defendant Adejumo, the district court did not err in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice, denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, imposing an enhancement for role in the offense, refusing to allow him to challenge the amount of the loss and calculating his criminal history score.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.