Akintola v. United States

Background

Oluwatomiwa Akintola pleaded guilty in June 2022 to conspiring to commit money laundering. The charge arose from a scheme involving online romance scams and the laundering of fraud proceeds. The court stated that Akintola’s shell company accounts received more than $1 million in fraud proceeds. He was sentenced in October 2022 to 57 months’ imprisonment and later surrendered to the Bureau of Prisons.

Akintola filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to ask the sentencing court to vacate, set aside, or correct a conviction or sentence. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, violations of the Speedy Trial Act, and violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. He also filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking a sentence reduction based on retroactive Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Section 2255 motion

The court considered Akintola’s claims on the merits rather than enforcing the plea agreement’s waiver of appellate and collateral-attack rights. The court noted that the waiver contained an exception for ineffective-assistance claims and determined that the Government had waived reliance on the waiver for the remaining claims by not raising it. The court also concluded that the Government had waived any procedural bar based on Akintola’s failure to raise his claims on direct appeal.

The court rejected Akintola’s Speedy Trial Act arguments. It found that the time exclusions were based on the need to review extensive discovery, prepare the case, and consider a possible resolution. Akintola and his co-defendants had consented to the exclusions, and the court had made findings explaining why the exclusions served the interests of justice. The court therefore found no viable Speedy Trial Act violation.

The court also rejected Akintola’s argument that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. During the plea hearing, the court had explained the money-laundering conspiracy charge, its elements, the possible penalties, and the rights Akintola would waive by pleading guilty. Akintola confirmed that he understood those matters and had discussed the charge and consequences with his attorney. The court also credited defense counsel’s statement that he had not promised Akintola probation or a sentence of no more than one-and-a-half years. The written plea agreement instead identified a guideline range of 57 to 71 months, and the court had warned that no one could predict the ultimate sentence with confidence.

The court further rejected Akintola’s broader ineffective-assistance claims. It credited counsel’s sworn account that he had met with Akintola and his family, reviewed the Government’s discovery with him, and prepared him for the guilty plea. Because Akintola did not show deficient performance, the court concluded that it did not need to separately analyze prejudice. The court denied the Section 2255 motion.

Sentence-reduction motion

The court found Akintola eligible for a reduction under Amendment 821’s provision for certain defendants with zero criminal-history points. Applying the amendment, the Probation Office calculated a new guideline range of 46 to 57 months, rather than the original range of 57 to 71 months.

Eligibility did not require the court to reduce the sentence. After considering the sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the offense, deterrence, Akintola’s conduct while on pretrial release, and his post-sentencing conduct, the court exercised its discretion not to reduce the sentence. The court acknowledged Akintola’s educational and work programming and lack of prison disciplinary infractions, but stated that the seriousness of the original conduct and what it viewed as false accusations in the Section 2255 motion weighed against a reduction. The court retained the 57-month sentence and denied the Section 3582(c)(2) motion.

Disposition

The court denied Akintola’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and denied his motion for a sentence reduction. It did not issue a certificate of appealability for the Section 2255 motion. It also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the clerk to terminate the two motions, and ordered the civil case closed.