122986P.pdf   11/25/2014  United States  v.  Adetokunbo Adejumo
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  12-2986
                          and No:  12-3009
                          and No:  12-3010
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Melloy, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   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.