Order Dismissing 240 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 249, N.D. Ga. No. 1:22-cr-00171)

Summary

An Order in United States of America v. Carl Delano Torjagbo, Case No. 1:22-cr-171-MLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed October 23, 2025 as Document 249. The order recounts that a jury convicted the defendant of bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, and that before sentencing, while represented by counsel, the defendant filed a pro se motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 240). It agrees with the United States that the motion is premature because the court has not yet sentenced the defendant, and dismisses it. The court adds that it would also dismiss the motion because Local Criminal Rule 57.1(D)(3) bars a represented defendant from filing pro se motions, the ground on which it denied a nearly identical motion (Dkt. 245).

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. 
 
Carl Delano Torjagbo, 
 
Defendant. 
 
________________________________/ 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:22-cr-171-MLB 
 
ORDER 
In July 25, 2025, a jury convicted Defendant Carl Torjagbo of bank 
fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.  (Dkt. 226.)  Defendant 
Torjagbo —while represented by counsel and prior to sentencing—filed a 
pro se motion to vacate or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
2255.  (Dkt. 240.)  His lawyer moved to withdraw, and the Court granted 
that motion.  (Dkts. 241, 242.)  At Defendant Torjagbo’s request, the 
Court appointed new counsel to represent him.  (Dkt. 243.)  The Court 
also ordered new counsel to notify the Court whether Defendant Torjagbo 
wanted to proceed on his motion to vacate.  (Docket Order dated 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 249     Filed 10/23/25     Page 1 of 3

2 
 
September 25, 2025.)1  Counsel—via email that is not part of the docket—
indicated Defendant Torjagbo wished to maintain his motion.  The 
United States filed an opposition saying the motion is premature since 
the Court has not yet sentenced Defendant Torjagbo.  (Dkt. 248.) 
     
The United States is right.  On its face, § 2255 applies to “[a] 
prisoner in custody under sentence of a court . . .”  See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) 
(emphasis added).  A court thus must dismiss as premature a § 2255 
motion filed prior to sentencing.  See United States v. Casaran-Rivas, 311 
F. App'x 269, 273 (11th Cir. 2009) (§ 2255 motion filed before sentencing 
must be dismissed as premature because Ҥ 2255, and the relevant case 
law, instruct that the time for filing a § 2255 motion begins to run after 
the direct appeal process is complete”).2  The Court has not yet sentenced 
 
1 Defendant Torjagbo filed another—nearly identical motion to vacate.  
(Dkt. 245.)  The Court denied that motion since Defendant Torjagbo had 
not complied with the requirements of Local Criminal Rule 57.1(D)(3), 
which precludes a represented defendant in a criminal matter from filing 
pro se motions.  (Dkt. 246.)  See also LCrR 57.1(D)(3) (“Whenever a party 
has appeared by attorney, the party may not thereafter appear or act in 
the party's own behalf in the action or proceeding or take any step therein 
unless the party has first given notice of the party's intention to the 
attorney of record and to the opposing party and has obtained an order of 
substitution from the Court.”).    
2 The Court recognizes Casaran-Rivas is unpublished and not binding 
but cites it as instructive, nonetheless.  See Searcy v. R.J. Reynolds 
Tobacco Co., 902 F.3d 1342, 1355 n.5 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Unpublished 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 249     Filed 10/23/25     Page 2 of 3

3 
 
Defendant Torjagbo and thus dismisses his motion (Dkt. 240).  The Court 
would also dismiss Defendant Torjagbo’s motion to vacate for the same 
reason it dismissed his other motion to vacate: he is represented by 
counsel and this Court’s Local Criminal Rules prevent him from filing 
pro se motions. 
 
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2025.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
cases do not constitute binding authority and may be relied on only to the 
extent they are persuasive.”).   
 
1 (1 
1 (1 
M I C H " K E L L . B R O W N 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 249     Filed 10/23/25     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.249.0.pdf

Size

143,613 bytes

SHA-256

7af6de0f6df2c7b2e4b737586181c39ea4948cff5467070424ec58319cebb2d8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.249.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)