United States of America v. Adelekan

Background

Oluwaseun Adelekan, representing himself, filed two motions. First, he sought reconsideration of the court’s November 21, 2024 order, which had denied his request for certain documents and treated his motion to vacate his conviction and sentence as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A § 2255 petition is a post-conviction filing through which a federal prisoner challenges a conviction or sentence. Second, he requested bail while the § 2255 petition was pending. The Government opposed both motions.

The earlier order had denied Adelekan’s request for grand-jury materials because his allegations about the time between indictments did not provide enough factual support to justify discovery. It had also found that his motion to vacate did not identify all grounds for relief and the supporting facts as required by the rules governing § 2255 proceedings. The court had allowed him to amend the motion.

Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration may succeed only if the movant identifies a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. The court explained that reconsideration is not an opportunity to argue again about issues already decided or to present arguments that could have been made earlier.

As to the request for grand-jury documents, Adelekan relied primarily on Hill v. Department of Justice. The court found Hill unpersuasive because it involved a different procedural setting and different governing law: a Freedom of Information Act summary-judgment motion, rather than reconsideration of a discovery ruling in this case. The court therefore DENIED reconsideration as to the Discovery Request.

As to the motion to vacate, Adelekan relied primarily on Adams v. United States. The court explained that Adams, later adopted by the Supreme Court in Castro v. United States, limits a court’s ability to recharacterize a self-represented post-conviction filing as a § 2255 petition unless the person agrees or receives an opportunity to withdraw it. The court found that its earlier order had complied with that requirement by allowing Adelekan to amend the filing and reminding him that later § 2255 motions could be subject to restrictions on second or successive petitions. The court also stated that Adelekan could withdraw the petition and refile it before the limitations period expired. It found no legally cognizable basis for reconsideration and DENIED reconsideration as to the Motion to Vacate.

Bail Request

The court held that federal courts have inherent authority to grant bail while a qualifying post-conviction petition is pending. Bail requires a showing of three things: substantial claims, extraordinary circumstances, and a need for bail to make the post-conviction remedy effective.

The court found that Adelekan had not presented a substantial claim. His argument was that his confinement was defective because the grand jury that indicted him had been extended beyond the maximum period allowed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court found that his allegations were conclusory and repeated the argument previously made in support of discovery. It also noted that the Government had pointed out that the indictments were issued within the standard grand-jury term.

The court separately found no extraordinary circumstances and no reason that bail was necessary to make the potential post-conviction remedy effective. It further stated that, even if the required elements were met, it could deny bail based on flight risk. In that context, the court relied on factors from an earlier bail ruling, including Adelekan’s substantial foreign ties and available funds, and noted his guilty plea to money-laundering charges in the District of Puerto Rico arising from conduct he undertook while on pretrial release in this case. The court DENIED the Bail Request.

Disposition

The court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration and DENIED the Bail Request. It permitted Adelekan to withdraw the § 2255 petition and refile it by January 14, 2026, when the court said the limitations period would expire, or to accept the court’s treatment of the filing as a § 2255 petition and amend it by November 15, 2025. The court also directed the Clerk to close the listed docket entries and mail the order to Adelekan.