Filed: Dec. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 14-3882-cr United States v. Shoneyin UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary
Summary: 14-3882-cr United States v. Shoneyin UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary o..
More
14-3882-cr
United States v. Shoneyin
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or
after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1
and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this
court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation
“summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not
represented by counsel.
At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on
the 10th day of December, two thousand fifteen.
Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
RALPH K. WINTER,
JOHN M. WALKER, Jr.,
Circuit Judges.
________________________________________________
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v. No. 14-3882-cr
HANAN AHMAD,
Defendant,
TEMIDAYO SHONEYIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________
For the United States: Andrew C. Adams, Justin Anderson, Assistant United States
Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York, New York, NY.
For Defendant-Appellant : Israel Arana, Coral Gables, FL.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Kaplan, J.).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Temidayo Shoneyin appeals from a judgment of conviction entered
September 30, 2014, sentencing him principally to 48 months’ incarceration. Shoneyin pleaded
guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and one count of theft of public funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
641, 642. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the relevant facts, the procedural history, and
the issues presented for review.
Shoneyin argues, for the first time on appeal, that the government breached the plea
agreement. Where, as here, the defendant failed to object to the alleged breach below, we review
only for plain error. Puckett v. United States,
556 U.S. 129, 133-34 (2009). Shoneyin contends
that the government breached the plea agreement by arguing that “a lengthy sentence of
incarceration, consistent with the recommendation under the Guidelines, is appropriate in this
case.” App. 22. However, no provision of the plea agreement prohibited the government from
making this argument. To the contrary, the plea agreement expressly permitted the government
to “make any arguments regarding where within the Stipulated Guidelines Range (or such other
range as the Court may determine) the defendant should be sentenced,” and even to “seek a
sentence outside of the Stipulated Guidelines Range.” App. 18. Shoneyin further contends that
the Probation Office breached the plea agreement by calculating a higher guidelines range than
that stipulated in the plea agreement. However, the plea agreement made clear that “neither the
Probation Office nor the Court is bound by the above Guidelines stipulation, either as to
questions of fact or as to the determination of the proper Guidelines to apply to the facts.”
Accordingly, we find no plain error.
2
Shoneyin also challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. Our review of the district
court’s sentence “encompasses two components: procedural review and substantive review.”
United States v. Cavera,
550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). Where, as here, a defendant
fails to raise his claim of procedural error in the district court, we review for plain error. United
States v. Wernick,
691 F.3d 108, 117 (2d Cir. 2012). Shoneyin contends the district court’s
application of a two-level leadership enhancement lacked a sufficient factual basis. However, the
undisputed facts in the Presentence Investigation Report establish that Shoneyin recruited
accomplices and directed them to carry out fraudulent bank transactions. Accordingly, the
district court did not commit plain error in applying the leadership enhancement. See USSG §
3B1.1 cmt. 4.
Shoneyin also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. A sentence is
substantively unreasonable “only in exceptional cases where the trial court’s decision ‘cannot be
located within the range of permissible decisions.’”
Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189 (quoting United
States v. Rigas,
490 F.3d 208, 238 (2d Cir. 2007)). Here, in light of the nearly $1 million in
economic loss that resulted from his crimes, Shoneyin’s recruitment of vulnerable accomplices,
and his five prior convictions in the United Kingdom, the 48-month sentence imposed by Judge
Kaplan was well within the range of permissible decisions.
We have considered Shoneyin’s remaining arguments and find that they lack merit. For
the reasons given, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
3