United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
D. PETERSON DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
filed a notice of appeal, but the court of appeals later
granted his motion to dismiss the appeal.
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. 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
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.