United States v. Omale ( 2022 )

Case: 20-50129 Document: 00516355712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 14, 2022
No. 20-50129 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Bameyi Kelvin Omale,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CR-78-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Bameyi Kelvin Omale pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (h). Omale’s
guidelines range was based on an intended loss amount that exceeded $9.5
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50129 Document: 00516355712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
No. 20-50129
million. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K). The district court sentenced Omale
within the guidelines range to 135 months of imprisonment. Omale appealed.
Omale argues that the district court erred in calculating the loss
amount under § 2B1.1(b)(1). According to Omale, there is insufficient
evidence in the record to hold him accountable for the entire $10,032,381.52
in intended losses through relevant conduct. The factual findings made in
support of a district court’s loss calculation are reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539, 556 (5th Cir. 2014).
The district court did not clearly err in holding Omale accountable for
an intended loss exceeding $9.5 million. See § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K). The
presentence report (PSR) described how Omale and his coconspirators
attempted to launder $10,032,381.52 in proceeds from business email
compromise scams and romance fraud scams. The PSR noted that there
were numerous text messages between Omale and his coconspirator Joseph
Odibobhahemen where the two men coordinated the movement of the
proceeds collected from the scams. Further, the PSR described how Omale
obtained account information from others involved in the conspiracy and
deposited fraud proceeds into those accounts. He also participated in the
conspiracy by personally opening fraudulent bank accounts to collect
proceeds using various aliases.
The Government’s sentencing memorandum, which the district court
relied on at sentencing, also shows that Omale was an active participant in
the conspiracy. See United States v. Plewniak, 947 F.2d 1284, 1290 (5th Cir.
1991). Screen shots of Omale’s text messages included in the memorandum,
showed Omale and Odibobhahemen working together to create a falsified
invoice for $105,454.65 to be used in a business email compromise scam. At
the end of the text exchange, Omale shares a screen shot of a fraudulent bank
account under his control receiving $105,454.65 in proceeds.
2
Case: 20-50129 Document: 00516355712 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/14/2022
No. 20-50129
Omale correctly states that Odibobhahemen “was an organizer of
many fraudulent schemes,” then suggests that the district court’s loss
calculation may have included fraud proceeds laundered as part of
Odibobhahemen’s other schemes that did not involve Omale, but there is no
evidence in the record to support this suggestion. The indictment, factual
basis, and PSR all support a single money laundering scheme jointly
undertaken by Omale and his coconspirators. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
Omale further argues that because “the record does not tie all of the
claimed loss amounts to specific dates,” it is “entirely possible” that some
of the funds were laundered before Omale joined the conspiracy.” He
compares his case to this court’s decision in United States v. Longstreet, 603
F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2010). Unlike Longstreet, however, Omale did not join a
conspiracy already in progress. See id. at 278. Instead, Omale and his
coconspirators “began” laundering the proceeds from their scams
“sometime before November 2016.” Thus, as the PSR indicates, he was one
of the initial members of the conspiracy, and there is no indication that he
was held accountable for funds laundered prior to his joining the conspiracy.
AFFIRMED.
3