Order Denying 281 Motion to Stay forfeiture pending appeal as to Carl Delano Torjagbo (1) — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 287, 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. 287 · 2026-04-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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, 
 
Defendant. 
 
________________________________/ 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:22-cr-171-MLB 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
A grand jury charged Defendant Carl Torjagbo with bank fraud, 
wire fraud, and money laundering arising from his fraudulent 
participation in the Paycheck Protection Program and fraudulent filing 
of tax refunds.  (Dkt. 198.)  The United States alleged he obtained more 
than $12 million from those schemes.  The indictment sought forfeiture 
of three cars, three pieces of real property, and money in two bank 
accounts.  (Id. at 14-15.)   
A jury convicted Defendant on all counts.  (Dkt. 226.)  Defendant 
waived his right to have the jury determine forfeiture and agreed the 
Court would decide it.  (Dkt. 268 at 150.)  The Court sentenced Defendant 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 287     Filed 04/24/26     Page 1 of 4

 
2
to 175 months of imprisonment.  (Dkts. 284, 270.)  The United States 
then moved for preliminary forfeiture of the identified assets.  (Dkt. 253.)  
The Court found the requisite nexus between the assets and the offenses 
of conviction and granted the United States’s motion.  (Dkt. 260.)  
Defendant moves to stay that order pending appeal.  (Dkt. 281.)   
Rule 32.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a 
court to stay an order of forfeiture pending appeal “on terms appropriate 
to ensure that the property remains available pending appellate review.” 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(d).  In deciding whether to grant a stay, courts 
consider (1) the defendant’s likelihood of success on appeal, (2) whether 
the forfeited asset will depreciate during the appeal, (3) whether the 
asset has unique or irreplaceable value to the defendant such that a 
substitute asset would not be available if the defendant prevailed on 
appeal, and (4) the cost of maintaining the forfeited property during the 
appeal.  United States v. Fisher, 2024 WL 2001596 *3 (N.D. Ga. April 1, 
2024) (citing cases).  
The Defendant contends he will likely prevail on appeal because he 
had no fraudulent intent and because “there is no proper nexus between 
the criminal acts alleged and the forfeited property.”  (Dkt. 281 at 2.)  He 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 287     Filed 04/24/26     Page 2 of 4

 
3
offers no further explanation.  The Court disagrees with Defendant’s 
assessment of his appellate chances.  The jury found Defendant had the 
requisite intent, and the Court found the necessary nexus.  Neither issue 
was close.  Since Defendant identifies no trial error or defect in the 
forfeiture analysis, the Court concludes Defendant has little chance of 
success on appeal.  The first factor strongly favors the United States.  
Vehicles depreciate.  One property—5114 Greythorne Lane—has been 
abandoned since 2023 and is deteriorating.  (Dkt. 139-1.)  The second 
factor leans heavily towards the United States as to the cars and favors 
it for that property.  Nothing suggests the assets have intrinsic value to 
Defendant.  Vehicles are replaceable, and Defendant offers nothing to 
suggest the properties are unique.  From a previous hearing, the Court 
concludes the Greythorne Lane home is a modest, average home 
available in many neighborhoods.  The Court also rejects the notion that 
real estate is inherently unique simply because someone bought it.  See 
Fisher, 2024 WL 2001596 *3 (noting courts’ reluctance “to find that 
property has intrinsic value simply because it is a home or a parcel of real 
property [and instead] requiring defendants seeking to stay forfeiture to 
allege facts showing that the property is unique” such as having nostalgic 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 287     Filed 04/24/26     Page 3 of 4

 
4
value).  So this factor remains neutral, or perhaps tips slight in the 
United States’s favor.  Maintenance costs weigh against a stay.  As of 
July 2024, the Greythorne Lane property had unpaid taxes of more than 
$66,700 while the other two properties had combined unpaid taxes of 
more than $11,000.  (Dkt. 167 at 61-66.)  Those amounts have increased.  
The homeowners association has also paid more than $140 per month 
since 2024 to maintain the Greythorne property.  (Dkt. 139-3.)  These 
expenses will continue to dimmish the assets’ value during appeal.  This 
factor strongly favors the United States. 
The first and fourth factors strongly favor the United States.  The 
other two tip slightly in its favor.  But none weigh in Defendant’s favor.  
Put differently, the United States is likely to prevail on appeal and, 
absent immediate forfeiture, will suffer irreparable injury from a delay 
while Defendant is unlikely to prevail and will face no irreparable injury 
should he beat the odds on appeal.  The Court thus DENIES Defendant’s 
motion to stay forfeiture pending appeal (Dkt 281).         
SO ORDERED this 24th day of April, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
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 287     Filed 04/24/26     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.287.0.pdf

Size

125,135 bytes

SHA-256

3b5e900e88ac1fabe34888bfa8a606712cff73e7e439a7d1b20d377260cf8a8c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.287.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)