No: 02-1017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Akeem Taiwo Sosanya, a/k/a DAVID BUNDY, a/k/a ANDREW LESLIE BARR, a/k/a MICHAEL…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-1017
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
AKEEM TAIWO SOSANYA,
a/k/a DAVID BUNDY,
a/k/a ANDREW LESLIE BARR,
a/k/a MICHAEL DARREN FRANKLIN
Akeem Taiwo Sosanya,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 00-cr-00759)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn
Argued on December 2, 2002
Before: ROTH, SMITH, Circuit Judges
CUDAHY*, Circuit Judge
(Opinion filed: January 31, 2003)
* Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting
by designation.
Patrick L. Meehan

-- 1 of 5 --

2
United States Attorney
Laurie Magid
Deputy United States Attorney
for Policy and Appeals
Robert A. Zauzmer
Assistant United States Attorney
Senior Appellate Counsel
Christopher R. Hall (Argued)
Assistant United States Attorney
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA
Counsel for Appellee
Michael E. Brunnabend, Esquire (Argued)
441 Linden Street
Allentown, PA 18102
Counsel for Appellant
O P I N I O N
ROTH, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Akeem Taiwo Sosanya pled guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and one count of possession of a counterfeit passport in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1546. He appeals his sentence of 27 months in prison. Pursuant to §
2F1.1(b)(5)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines, the District Court applied a two level
enhancement to his sentence because the offense involved the production of an
unauthorized counterfeit access device. Sosanya claims that the District Court committed

-- 2 of 5 --

3
clear error in applying this enhancement, as his relevant conduct did not include
involvement in the production of the counterfeit credit cards.
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the final
judgment of the District Court. Whether a defendant’s actions in furtherance of a bank
fraud scheme constitute “relevant conduct” is a determination of fact. United States v.
Perez, 280 F.3d 318, 352 (3d Cir. 2002). We review the District Court’s finding of fact
for clear error and give due deference to its application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the
facts. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). Because we find no such error here, we will affirm the two
level enhancement under § 2F1.1(b)(5)(B).
Under § 2F1.1(b)(5), if the offense involved the production or trafficking of any
unauthorized access device or counterfeit access device, the offense level is increased by
2. If production or trafficking in counterfeit access devices is a reasonably foreseeable act
that occurred during the commission of the offense or in preparation for that offense, §
1B1.3(a) of the Guidelines prescribes that that conduct is relevant.
Sosanya and co-defendants, Lloyd Mbamali, Suzanne Moses, and another unnamed
individual, went from London to the United States. The day before the trip, Mbamali gave
them counterfeit credit cards. Once in the United States, they drew cash advances from
several banks, using the counterfeit credit cards, and wired the money back to London. On
October 19, 2000, two weeks before the trip to the United States, the “Doctor,” the leader
of the scheme, had also sent Sosanya and Moses to Paris, France, where they used
counterfeit credit cards, which may or may not have been the same cards used in the United

-- 3 of 5 --

4
States, to rent two automobiles. The automobiles were later reported stolen.
Sosanya was involved in the scheme to commit bank fraud at least as early as the trip
to Paris. Accordingly, all activity on or after October 19, 2000, involving that scheme, may
be attributed to Sosanya for purposes of sentence enhancement.
The District Court found that Sosanya met the “Doctor” in England, knew about the
credit card/bank fraud scheme, and expressed interest in conducting this scheme in the
United States. The District Court also found that the production of counterfeit credit cards
was “part of the relevant conduct of the conspiracy,” and that Sosanya knew about a credit
card making machine and a computer that contained the numbers. The District Court
concluded that, as part of the relevant conduct concerning the conspiracy, it was reasonably
foreseeable by Sosanya that the Doctor and Mbamali would produce the counterfeit credit
cards in furtherance of the bank fraud scheme.
We conclude that the District Court appropriately considered the production of
counterfeit credit cards, regardless of whether Sosanya actually took part in their
production. Although “the scope of the criminal activity jointly undertaken by the
defendant . . . is not necessarily the same as the scope of the entire conspiracy,” conduct is
relevant conduct if it is within the scope of the “criminal activity that the defendant agreed
to jointly undertake” and is “reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal
activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, Application Note 2. The bank fraud scheme that Sosanya
agreed to jointly undertake could not be accomplished without the production of the
counterfeit credit cards. It was, therefore, reasonably foreseeable to Sosanya that the

-- 4 of 5 --

5
counterfeit credit cards needed to be produced in order to accomplish this scheme. The
District did not commit clear error in finding that the cards were produced after Sosanya
joined the scheme. Therefore, the District Court properly applied § 2F1.1 to enhance
Sosanya’s offense level.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of sentence of the District
Court.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --