United States v. Sesay, No. 18-1071 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Defendants Sayonkon and Samaan appealed their convictions for aggravated identity theft and conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Defendant Sesay pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. All defendants appealed their sentences.
The Eighth Circuit held that there was sufficient evidence to convict Sayonkon and Samaan for a single conspiracy to commit bank fraud; there was no variance between the indictment for a single conspiracy charged in the indictment and the proof at trial; the district court did not err in denying Samaan's motion to suppress evidence gathered when police examined the guest registry at a motel he was staying, because he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the identification card that he provided when registering at the motel; the evidence was sufficient to support Samaan's conviction for aggravated identity theft where a reasonable jury could find that he knowingly used another person's identification and that "another person" includes both the living and deceased; the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1 to Sayonkon for his role as a leader in the criminal activity; the district court properly calculated the loss amount for sentencing Samaan; and Sesay's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendants Sayonkon's and Samaan's convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and there was no variance between the indictment for a single conspiracy and the proof at trial; police search of a motel's guest registry did not violate Samaan's Fourth Amendment rights as he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the identification card he provided at registration; evidence was sufficient to support defendant Samaan's conviction for aggravated identity theft; when an offender knowingly uses a means of identification of another person, the phrase "another person," includes both the living and the dead, and the government is not obligated to prove the person whose identity was stolen was living; no error in applying a leadership role enhancement in sentencing defendant Sayonkon; the district court properly calculated the amount of loss for sentencing defendant Samaan; defendant Sesay's below-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.