Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adegoke v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

March 20, 2019

MICHAEL ADEGOKE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JAMES D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE

         Michael Adegoke has filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge the sentence he received after he pleaded guilty to wire fraud. He contends that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to raise several issues during sentencing, including that some victims' financial losses should not have been considered because they were not reasonably foreseeable.

         Adegoke also filed a separate document that he calls “Request to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts” in which he contends that he has “prima facie evidence” that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him. Dkt. 262.[1] I will construe the second document as a supplement to Adegoke's petition. Finally, Adegoke has filed what I construe as a motion to file a late reply brief, No. 18-cv-815-jdp, Dkt. 11, along with the brief.

         I will grant the motion to file the late brief, but I will deny Adoegoke's petition and supplement. Adegoke has failed to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel or that the court lacked jurisdiction over him.

         BACKGROUND

         This case arises out of a conspiracy involving a “romance fraud scheme.” Adegoke and other members of the conspiracy-including Sally Iriri, Richard Ugbah, and John Whipple- expressed romantic interest in victims on dating sites, gained the victims' trust, and then defrauded the victims out of money in various ways. In March 2017, Adegoke pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

         The original presentence report attributed $2.9 million of losses to Adegoke. Dkt. 175, Appx. B. In response to Adegoke's objections to the report, the government conceded that approximately $650, 000 should not be attributed to Adegoke. Dkt. 187. An amended presentence report attributed $2.3 million in losses to Adegoke.

         At the sentencing hearing, I sustained additional objections to some of the losses attributed to Adegoke and I overruled others. I found that Adegoke was responsible for $1.9 million in losses. As a result, Adegoke's advisory guideline range was 78-97 months. I then considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a sentence to reflect those factors. First, I imposed a 23-month upward departure for impact to the victims, as I had with Iriri. Second, I imposed a 24-month upward variance for Adegoke's greater culpability in the conspiracy as compared to Iriri. Ultimately, I sentenced Adegoke to a term of imprisonment of 144 months.

         Adegoke filed a notice of appeal, but the court of appeals later granted his motion to dismiss the appeal.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Ineffective assistance

         Adegoke's primary contention is that his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to object at sentencing to certain victim losses attributed to Adegoke in the presentence report.[2] He also says that counsel failed to investigate and submit mitigating evidence related to Adegoke's role in the offense and his conduct after the offense.[3]

         A claim for ineffective assistance has two elements: deficient performance and prejudice. Brown v. Finnan, 598 F.3d 416, 422 (7th Cir. 2010). Performance is measured under an objective standard: whether counsel's conduct “fell outside the wide range of competent representation.” Swanson v. United States, 692 F.3d 708, 714 (7th Cir. 2012). It is not enough to show that counsel “deviated from best practices or most common custom.” Harris v. Thompson, 698 F.3d 609, 640 (7th Cir. 2012). (internal quotations omitted). And there is a “strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Brady v. Pfister, 711 F.3d 818, 823 (7th Cir. 2013). To satisfy the prejudice element in the sentencing context, Adegoke must show that there is “a reasonable probability” that he would have received a lighter sentence but for counsel's alleged errors. Griffin v. Pierce, 622 F.3d 831, 844 (7th Cir. 2010).

         1. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.