RESPONSE in Opposition as to Carl Delano Torjagbo filed by USA re 189 MOTION for Bill of… — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 192)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC · Doc. 192 · 2025-06-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The government's response in opposition to the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars (Doc. 189) in United States v. Carl Delano Torjagbo, No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed June 12, 2025 as Doc. 192. The defendant's motion sought an explanation of how another person's identity was used in furtherance of the bank fraud charged in Count 1. Citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) and appellate case law, the government argues that a bill of particulars is not a roadmap to its case and is unavailable for information already provided. It states that the indictment alleges a PPP loan application listing 493 employees and that discovery included the application, payroll records and an FBI interview report. The response asks the court to deny the motion and is signed by two Assistant United States Attorneys.

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

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
CARL DELANO TORJAGBO A/K/A 
KARL LUCIUS DELANO 
 
Criminal Action No. 
1:22-CR-171-MLB-RDC 
 
Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars 
The United States of America, by Theodore S. Hertzberg, United States 
Attorney, and Kelly K. Connors and Nicholas L. Evert, Assistant United States 
Attorneys for the Northern District of Georgia, files this Response in Opposition 
to Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 189). 
Defendant seeks a bill of particulars explaining how M.S.’s identity was used 
or possessed in furtherance of the bank fraud charged in Count 1. However, 
since he has access to all of the information in discovery that he needs to prepare 
a defense, he is not entitled to the roadmap of the Government’s case that he 
seeks. Accordingly, the Motion for Bill of Particulars should be denied.  
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY 
 Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an 
indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the 
essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). The 
same rule authorizes a court to 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 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 192     Filed 06/12/25     Page 1 of 5

2 
 
defendant of the charge against him with sufficient precision to allow him to 
prepare his defense, to minimize surprise at 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. 1986) (quoting United States v. 
Cole, 755 F.2d 748, 760 (11th Cir. 1985)).  
As other courts in this district have stated, “[b]ills of particulars are not 
routinely granted.” United States v. Leiva-Portillo, No. 1:06-CR-350-WSD-LTW, 
2007 WL 1706351, at *14 (N.D. Ga. June 12, 2007). They are meant to 
“supplement[] an indictment by providing the defendant with information 
necessary for trial preparation.” Anderson, 799 F.2d at 1441 (emphasis added); see 
also United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 837 (11th Cir. 1985) (affirming denial of 
bill of particulars request when defendants “failed to show that they were unable 
to prepare a defense without the requested information” (emphasis added)).  
Thus, “a defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars with respect to 
information which is already available through other sources,” United States v. 
Martell, 906 F.2d 555, 558 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks 
omitted), including through the indictment and discovery materials. Leiva-
Portillo, 2007 WL 1706351, at *14.   
Bills of particulars are also not intended “to give the defense a road map to 
the government’s case.” Id. (citation omitted). Nor are they “‘designed to compel 
the government to [provide a] detailed exposition of its evidence or to explain 
the legal theories upon which it intends to rely at trial.’” United States v. Roberts, 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 192     Filed 06/12/25     Page 2 of 5

3 
 
174 F. App’x 475, 477 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 
1352, 1359 (5th Cir. 1980)).1 
Here, Defendant does not appear to seriously contend that he is unable to 
prepare for trial on the aggravated identity theft count. Nor could he. The 
operative 18-page speaking indictment explains in detail how Defendant 
submitted an application for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan that 
contained false information, including that his company had 493 employees. 
Doc. 180 ¶ 9. In support of this, he submitted phony payroll records purporting 
to show that the company indeed had 493 employees. Id. ¶ 11. The Indictment 
then alleges that Defendant used a means of identification of M.S. during and in 
relation to the PPP fraud. Id. ¶ 15. In discovery, Defendant has been provided 
with his application for the PPP loan, the phony payroll records he submitted, 
and a report regarding an interview of M.S. by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.  
Defendant evidently disagrees with the Government that his use of M.S.’s 
identity constitutes aggravated identity theft, but he is not unable to prepare a 
defense to the aggravated identity theft charge without a bill of particulars. 
Indeed, he has filed multiple motions attacking the aggravated identity theft 
count, which demonstrate that he is sufficiently informed of the charge. Rather, 
Defendant appears to want a “detailed exposition of [the Government’s] 
evidence” and an explanation of “the legal theories upon which it intends to rely 
 
1 Fifth Circuit decisions rendered prior to October 1, 1981 are precedential 
authority in this Circuit.  Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 192     Filed 06/12/25     Page 3 of 5

4 
 
at trial.” See Roberts, 174 F. App’x at 477. Because he is entitled to neither, the 
Motion for Bill of Particulars should be denied.  
Conclusion 
For the reasons presented here, the United States respectfully requests that the 
Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 189). 
Respectfully submitted, 
THEODORE S. HERTZBERG 
United States Attorney 
/s/KELLY K. CONNORS 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 504787 
Kelly.Connors@usdoj.gov 
/s/NICHOLAS L. EVERT 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 693062 
Nicholas.Evert@usdoj.gov 
600 U.S. Courthouse 
75 Ted Turner Drive S.W. 
Atlanta, GA 30303 
Tel: (404) 581-6000; Fax: (404) 581-6181 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 192     Filed 06/12/25     Page 4 of 5

 
Certificate of Service 
The United States Attorney’s Office served this document today by filing it using 
the Court’s CM/ECF system, which automatically notifies the parties and counsel 
of record. 
June 12, 2025 
 
/s/ NICHOLAS L. EVERT 
 
NICHOLAS L. EVERT 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 192     Filed 06/12/25     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.192.0.pdf

Size

93,931 bytes

SHA-256

ad976fefc80d5128f119e8049e7b77f765f1b1b0a87f2f8b272e87e0b4c88c5d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.192.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)