United States v. Sanusi

Case: 21-40864 Document: 00516702423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-40864 April 5, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Adedayo Hakeem Sanusi,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-172-1
Before Richman, Chief Judge, Duncan, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Adedayo Hakeem Sanusi pleaded guilty to possession of 15 or more
access devices, aggravated identity theft, and illegal possession of device-
making equipment. The district court varied upwardly from the guidelines
range of imprisonment and imposed a total sentence of 84 months in prison.
Sanusi appeals his sentence.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-40864 Document: 00516702423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2023
No. 21-40864
Sanusi asserts that the district court erred in applying an enhancement
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) on the basis that his offense conduct
involved sophisticated means. He argues that his conduct was unexceptional.
We review his claim of error, which he preserved for appeal, for clear error.
See United States v. Valdez, 726 F.3d 684, 692 (5th Cir. 2013).
The district court’s finding that Sanusi’s fraudulent scheme involved
sophisticated means is plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United
States v. Miller, 906 F.3d 373, 380 (5th Cir. 2018); Valdez, 726 F.3d at 692.
As part of his scheme, he generated false identification documents, assumed
people’s identities, produced unauthorized and counterfeit credit cards, and
used the altered credit cards for fraudulent transactions. In addition, Sanusi
utilized internet platforms to talk to victims, impersonate various people, and
obtain money and access to accounts. He used his victims’ identities to open
accounts and obtain credit cards, acquire loans, and attempt to buy property.
Also, he sent wire transfers from dubious business entities connected to him
to unknown recipients abroad. While Sanusi suggests that no sophistication
was shown because aspects of his scheme were not particularly complex, the
overall scheme, including the multiple methods that he utilized to conceal his
conduct, supports that the district court properly applied the adjustment. See
Miller, 906 F.3d at 380; Valdez, 726 F.3d at 695.
Sanusi also argues that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
He asserts that the guidelines range accounted for the factors that the district
court invoked to justify the upward variance and alleges that the district court
did not properly support its decision to vary. We review his claim for abuse
of discretion. See United States v. Vargas, 21 F.4th 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2021).
The record establishes that the district court gave fact-specific reasons
for varying upward and that its reasons were consistent with the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.
2
Case: 21-40864 Document: 00516702423 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2023
No. 21-40864
2006). The district court could consider factors that were incorporated by
the Sentencing Guidelines in deciding that an upward variance was proper.
See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2008); United States
v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 809-11 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court was in a
superior position to determine the importance of particular facts under
§ 3553(a), and we must uphold the sentence imposed even if we reasonably
could hold that a different sentence was proper. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th
Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Sanusi is not entitled to relief merely because he
believes that the § 3553(a) factors would have been equally served by a lesser
sentence and that the district court erred in weighing the § 3553(a) factors.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Under the totality of the circumstances, the degree
of the variance was not so disproportionate so as to overcome the factors that
supported its imposition. See Brantley, 537 F.3d at 349.
Thus, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3