Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Okeayainneh

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

October 3, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
(1) JULIAN OKEAYAINNEH, Defendant.

          JULIAN OKEAYAINNEH, PRO SE.

          MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER

          Michael J. Davis United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Julian Okeayainneh's Pro Se Revised Request to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts Pursuance to (Fed. Evid. R. 201(c)(2)) and for Evidence Rule 201(e) Hearing on Matter of Judicial Notice (Fed. R. Evid. 201(e)) [Docket No. 1277]; Part-2 and Addendum to Revised Request to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts Pursuance to (Fed. Evid. R. 201(c)(2)) and for Evidence Rule 201(e) Hearing on Matter of Judicial Notice (Fed. R. Evid. 201(e)) [Docket No. 1279]; and Pro Se Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a) and (b) [Docket No. 1284].

         II. BACKGROUND

         On February 28, 2012, after a trial, a jury found Defendant Julian Okeayainneh guilty of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and trafficking in false authentication features, all as charged in the Third Superseding Indictment. [Docket No. 625] Defendant was acquitted on one count of aggravated identity theft.

         Defendant filed a Post-Trial Motion for a New Trial [Docket No. 635] and a Post-Trial Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [Docket No. 636]. On June 22, 2012, the Court denied both motions. [Docket No. 667]

         On August 13, 2012, the Court sentenced Defendant to a term of 324 months. [Docket No. 733] The sentencing judgment, entered on August 15, 2012, left the amount of restitution open. [Docket No. 759]

         Defendant appealed both his conviction and his sentence. See United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513, 520 (8th Cir. 2014). He argued that the Court should have dismissed the Third Superseding Indictment based on the Speedy Trial Act; that the Court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on conspiracy to commit bank fraud based on insufficient evidence; that the Court erred in admitting an organizational chart into evidence at trial; that the Court erred in admitting his proffer statements at trial; and that the Court erred in imposing sentencing enhancements for loss amount of more than $50 million, number of victims of at least 250, role, and obstruction of justice. Ick at 520, 526.

         On August 15, 2013, while Defendant's appeal was pending, the Government moved to amend the sentencing judgment to include restitution in the amount of $4, 368, 192.01. [Docket No. 992] Defendant did not file a response to the Government's motion. On August 29, 2013, the Court entered an Amended Judgment, which included restitution of $4, 368, 192.01. [Docket No. 1001]

         On November 25, 2014, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction, affirmed all sentencing enhancements other than obstruction of justice, and remanded for resentencing based on the application of the obstruction of justice enhancement. [Docket No. 1046] See Adejumo, 772 F.3d at 539.

         On December 22, 2015, the Court resentenced Defendant to the same 324-month sentence. [Docket Nos. 1155, 1158] The Second Amended Judgment again included restitution in the amount of $4, 368, 192.01. Defendant appealed his resentencing as substantively unreasonable. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari and petition for rehearing. [Docket Nos. 1192, 1193, 1199, 1202, 1208] United States v. Okeayainneh, 668 Fed.Appx. 681 (8th Cir. 2016).

         In 2017, Defendant filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [Docket No. 1219], as well as various related motions. On August 1, 2018, the Court denied Defendant's motions. [Docket No. 1256] On September 5, 2018, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and Order Government to Provide Evidence. [Docket No. 1266] Defendant sought to appeal both denials. [Docket Nos. 1259, 1268] On December 21, 2018, the Eighth Circuit denied certificates of appealability on both appeals. [Docket No. 1276]

         On January 9, 2019, Okeayainneh filed a Pro Se Revised Request to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts Pursuance to (Fed. Evid. R. 201(c)(2)) and for Evidence Rule 201(e) Hearing on Matter of Judicial Notice (Fed. R. Evid. 201(e)). [Docket No. 1277] On January 31, 2019, Okeayainneh filed Part-2 and Addendum to Revised Request to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts Pursuance to (Fed. Evid. R. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.