Notice of Intention to Use 404(b) Evidence filed by USA as to Carl Delano Torjagbo — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 196, N.D. Ga. No. 1:22-cr-00171)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC · Doc. 196 · 2025-06-30 · Docket on CourtListener

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 
 
Notice of Intent to Use Evidence Under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) 
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 Notice of Intent to Use 
Evidence Under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 
 Please take notice that the Government believes that the evidence identified 
below is admissible as “inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the 
charged offense[s].” United States v. Ramsdale, 61 F.3d 825, 829 (11th Cir. 1995). 
Such “[e]vidence, not part of the crime[s] charged but pertaining to the chain of 
events explaining the context, motive and set-up of the crime[s], is properly 
admitted if linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime[s], or forms 
an integral and natural part of an account of the crime, or is necessary to 
complete the story of the crime for the jury.” United States v. Williford, 764 F.2d 
1493, 1499 (11th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the Government believes this evidence 
is admissible regardless of whether it may be also admissible under Federal Rule 
of Evidence 404(b). But if the evidence is not otherwise admissible, its admission 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 196     Filed 06/30/25     Page 1 of 7

2 
 
will be sought under Rule 404(b) and the Government reserves the right to 
present said evidence during its case-in chief, in cross-examination, and in 
rebuttal. 
1. Background 
Defendant is charged with two counts of wire fraud, based on his submission 
of two fraudulent tax returns to the United States Department of the Treasury, 
Internal Revenue Service. Specifically, on or about February 13, 2021, Defendant 
electronically filed two fraudulent U.S. individual income tax returns for tax year 
2020, both of which reported fictitious wages, withholdings, and nonpassive 
losses from his bogus company, Kremkov Industries. Both of the fraudulent tax 
returns were submitted in the name of Defendant, Carl Torjagbo, but one was 
submitted with a social security number (“SSN”) ending 6010 and a birthdate in 
1975, and the other was submitted with a SSN ending 0540 and a different 
birthdate in 1979.1 
2. Proposed Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts 
The Government anticipates that a witness from the Social Security 
Administration (“SSA”) will testify that Defendant obtained two social security 
numbers. He obtained the SSN ending 6010 in 1997 using the 1975 birthdate. 
Several years later, in 2005, he obtained the second SSN, ending 0540, using 
different identifying information, including the 1979 birthdate. Because one 
 
1 The Second Superseding Indictment mistakenly describes one of the SSNs as an 
Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (“ITIN”). Both numbers were SSNs. 
The Government will supersede to correct this mistake.   
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 196     Filed 06/30/25     Page 2 of 7

3 
 
person cannot have two birthdates, the implication of this testimony is that at 
least one of Defendant’s SSNs must have been obtained using false or fraudulent 
information.  
The Government also anticipates showing that Defendant used both of these 
identities. Specifically, based on queries of law enforcement databases, 
Defendant obtained driver’s licenses in Florida and Texas using the 1975 
birthdate; however, he obtained a driver’s license in Georgia using the 1979 
birthdate. The law enforcement queries associate photographs of Defendant with 
the Florida and Texas driver’s licenses and the 1975 birthdate, and with the 
Georgia driver’s license and the 1979 birthdate. The Government has requested 
certified copies of these driver’s license records. 
3. Intrinsic Evidence  
The evidence above “forms an integral and natural part of an account of the 
crime, [and] is necessary to complete the story of the crime for the jury.” See 
Williford, 764 F.2d at 1499. Specifically, the evidence explains how Defendant was 
able to submit two individual tax returns at the same time. Evidence concerning 
the issuance of these two SSNs and Defendant’s prior use of both SSNs with the 
respective birthdates provides this explanation. Without this evidence, a jury 
would likely be confused as to how these two tax returns could have been 
submitted by one person, given that almost everyone only has one SSN, and 
nobody has multiple dates of birth. Moreover, the use of two different sets of 
birthdates and SSNs is an integral part of the crime, which involved submitting 
two different tax returns that reported false information in an effort to obtain 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 196     Filed 06/30/25     Page 3 of 7

4 
 
over $3 million from each fraudulent return. Accordingly, Defendant’s use of 
both birthdates and acquisition of both social security numbers in the tax returns 
are inextricably intertwined with the wire fraud counts charged in this case. Cf. 
United States v. Castro, 626 F. Supp. 3d 1186, 1191 (D. Nev. 2022) (finding that 
prior conviction was “inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses” where 
defendant used the same false identity in connection with both crimes).  
4. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)  
Although the evidence should be admitted as intrinsic evidence, it is also 
admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as evidence of identity, intent, 
and knowledge. Rule 404(b), which governs the admissibility at trial of evidence 
of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or 
other act …. may be admissible for … proving motive, opportunity, intent, 
preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, or lack of 
accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).  
Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible at trial if: (1) the evidence is relevant to an 
issue other than the defendant’s character; (2) the act is established by sufficient 
proof to permit the jury to conclude that the defendant committed the act; and (3) 
the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the risk of 
undue prejudice. United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255, 1267 (11th Cir. 2008).  
Here, the evidence of Defendant’s use of the two birthdates and acquisition of 
the two SSNs is directly relevant to identity and intent. First, the evidence, which 
would be presented through competent witness testimony, helps prove that it 
was indeed Defendant who submitted both fraudulent tax returns. Second, the 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 196     Filed 06/30/25     Page 4 of 7

5 
 
evidence demonstrates Defendant’s intent to defraud the IRS by submitting two 
different tax returns that included false information. The highly probative value 
of this evidence would not be outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. The 
jury will necessarily see that Defendant used different SSNs and birthdates in 
connection with two returns he filed on the same day. The evidence provides 
substantial clarity and proof of identity related to these two tax returns, and the 
risk of undue prejudice is low.  
This evidence is also probative of knowledge and intent concerning 
Defendant changing his name from Carl Torjagbo to Karl Delano. When 
interviewed by law enforcement, Defendant claimed that he changed his name 
“because [his old] last name was hard to pronounce.” (Doc. 145 at 28). The 
Government contends that he changed his name in an effort to conceal his 
fraudulent acquisition of millions of dollars. Defendant previously shifted his 
identity by obtaining a new SSN based on a different date of birth. This fact 
shows that Defendant’s intent in changing his name was not as innocuous as he 
says it was, but rather was designed to conceal his fraud schemes. See Castro, 626 
F. Supp. 3d at 1191 (“in cases involving crimes of deceit, such as mail fraud, 
courts allow evidence of prior acts of fraud to demonstrate intent or knowledge, 
such as evidence of a defendant's use of a false identity”). 
5. Conclusion 
For the reasons set forth above, the evidence should be admissible both as 
intrinsic evidence and Rule 404(b) evidence. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 196     Filed 06/30/25     Page 5 of 7

6 
 
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 196     Filed 06/30/25     Page 6 of 7

 
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 30, 2025 
 
/s/ NICHOLAS L. EVERT 
 
NICHOLAS L. EVERT 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 196     Filed 06/30/25     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.196.0.pdf

Size

121,839 bytes

SHA-256

350608140e14fb55539d0ea40d22f9216aaedcd8c6059c95154861030e6cce1a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.196.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)