MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Carl Delano Torjagbo — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 189)

Summary

In this Motion for Bill of Particulars, Document 189 filed 06/05/25 in Case No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC in the Northern District of Georgia, defendant Karl Lucius Delano, also known as Carl Delano Torjagbo, asks the Court to order the government to file a bill of particulars so he can prepare his defense. The motion says Count 2 of the Second Superseding Indictment charges aggravated identity theft based on the use of the identity of M.S. during the bank fraud scheme in Count 1. It argues that charge appears premised solely on M.S.'s name being one of 493 employee names submitted with a PPP loan application, and notes a separate motion to dismiss Count 2. He asks for notice of how that identity was allegedly used or possessed in furtherance of the bank fraud.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
 
)
v.
)
                                 
)    Case No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC
)
  Second Superseding 
CARL DELANO TORJAGBO,
)
a/k/a
)
KARL LUCIUS DELANO.
)
)
____________________________
)
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
COMES NOW the Defendant, KARL LUCIUS DELANO, a/k/a CARL
DELANO TORJAGBO, by and through counsel, and moves this Court to order
the government to file a bill of particulars so Mr. Delano can properly prepare his
defense. In support thereof, he shows the following: 
I. A BILL OF PARTICULARS IS NEEDED TO ALLOW MR. DELANO 
   TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE AND TO MINIMIZE HIS SURPRISE 
   AT TRIAL.  
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f), “[t]he court may direct 
the government to file a bill of particulars.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f). The purpose of a
bill of particulars is to “inform the defendant of the charge against him with 
sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense, to minimize surprise at
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 189     Filed 06/05/25     Page 1 of 6

trial, and to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the event of a later prosecution
for the same offense.” United States v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441 (11th Cir.
1985). A bill of particulars supplements an indictment by providing information
necessary for a defendant to prepare for trial, and it is not meant to function as a
discovery device. Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441-42. The Court is vested with broad
discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion for a bill of particulars. United
States v. Cole, 755 F2d. 748, 760 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Colson, 662
F.2d 1389, 1391 (11th Cir. 1981). However, “where an indictment fails to set forth
specific facts in support of requisite elements of the charged offense, and the
information is essential to the defense, failure to grant a request for a bill of
particulars may constitute reversible error.” Cole, 755 F.2d at 760; see also United
States v. Sharpe, 483 F.3d 1257, 1263 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting that an
indictment need not allege in detail the factual proof that will be relied upon to
support a charge but that failing to grant a motion for a bill of particulars to obtain
information essential to the defense nay be reversible error).   
Count 2 of the Second Superseding Indictment charges Mr. Delano with
aggravated identity theft and alleges he used the identity of “M.S.” during and in
relation to the bank fraud scheme charged in Count 1 of this Second Superseding
Indictment. (Doc. 180-p. 5). A close review of Count 1, and paragraphs 2 through
2
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 189     Filed 06/05/25     Page 2 of 6

12 thereof, reveals the government’s aggravated identity theft charge in Count 2
appears to be premised solely upon the alleged inclusion of “M.S.’s” name as
being one of the 493 employee names submitted along with the PPP loan
application. In a separate motion, Mr. Delano has moved to dismiss Count 2 for
failure to adequately state the offense of aggravated identity theft. Specifically,
given the government’s incorporated language from Count 1 and the allegation in
Count 2, as a matter of law, the identity of “M.S.” was not used during and in
relation to the bank fraud scheme charged in Count 1. Thus, Count 2 must be
dismissed. Citing Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110, 143 S. Ct. 1557 (2023).
(Doc. 188). 
Should the government contest his motion to dismiss Count 2, Mr. Delano
requires a bill of particulars to inform him - 
How the identity of “M.S.” allegedly was used or possessed in
furtherance of the bank fraud charged in Count 1. 
Admittedly, an indictment may use the statutory language to generally
describe the offense. However, that language “must be accompanied with such a
statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific
offen[s]e, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.”
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117-18 (1974). In Sharpe, 438 F.3d at
3
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 189     Filed 06/05/25     Page 3 of 6

1263, the Eleventh Circuit found that indictment provided sufficient factual details
about the charged fraud scheme. However, the Sharpe case, specifically noted: 
To the extent the defendants suggest more detail was
required in the indictment, we disagree. “It is not
necessary for an indictment ... to allege in detail the
factual proof that will be relied upon to support the
charges. That information, if essential to the defense, can
be obtained by a motion for a bill of particulars and
failure to grant such a motion may be reversible error.”
United States v. Crippen, 579 F.2d 340, 342 (5th
Cir.1978). We note that the defendants did not move
for a bill of particulars here, nor, for that matter, did
they ever ask for the relief they ultimately obtained
by virtue of the sua sponte dismissal of the
indictment. 
Sharpe at 1263 n.3. (Emphasis). 
Here, Count 2 should be dismissed, or, at a minimum, a bill of particulars
should issue. As it currently stands, Count 2 of Mr. Delano’s indictment is
insufficient. The evidence and allegations provided are insufficient for Mr. Delano
to prepare a defense to the charge of aggravated identity theft. For this reason, Mr.
Delano asks this Court to grant his request for a bill of particulars.  
WHEREBY, Mr. Delano asks the Court to order the government to file the 
requested bill of particulars and give him notice of how the identity of “M.S.”
allegedly was used or possessed in furtherance of the bank fraud charged in 
4
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 189     Filed 06/05/25     Page 4 of 6

Count 1. 
Dated:  This 5th day of June, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
 
s/ L. Burton Finlayson 
L. BURTON FINLAYSON
Attorney for KARL DELANO 
Georgia Bar Number: 261460
LAW OFFICE OF
L. BURTON FINLAYSON, LLC 
685 Linwood Avenue, NE, Suite 200A
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
(404) 872-0560
lbfcourts@aol.com
5
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 189     Filed 06/05/25     Page 5 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day electronically filed the Motion for Bill
of Particulars with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will
automatically send email notifications of such filing upon all counsel of record
including the following:
 
      Ms. Kelly Connors, and
      Mr. Nicholas Evert 
     Assistant United States Attorneys
     600 U.S. Courthouse
     75 Ted Turner Drive, S. W.
     Atlanta, Georgia  30303
DATED:  This 5th day of June, 2025.
 s/ L. Burton Finlayson 
L. BURTON FINLAYSON
ATTORNEY FOR KARL DELANO   
State Bar Number: 261460   
  
6
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 189     Filed 06/05/25     Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.189.0.pdf

Size

91,003 bytes

SHA-256

36e5e21f2dcbb87be04922dfbbb5d110203be1de21243e9d6a0867463106a6e2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.189.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)