Sentencing Memorandum by Anuli Okeke — Sentencing Memorandum by Anuli Okeke — USA v. Okeke (Dkt. 62) (Dkt. 62, E.D.N.Y.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York · No. 1:22-cr-00020-FB · Doc. 62 · 2025-02-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
February 28, 2025 
BY ECF 
 
Honorable Federic Block 
United States District Judge 
Eastern District of New York  
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
 
Re:  
United States v. Anuli Okeke 
        
 
22 Cr. 20 (FB)  
 Dear Judge Block:  
  
Defendant Anuli Okeke (“Okeke”) respectfully submits this letter as a Sentencing 
Memorandum for the Court’s consideration in determining her appropriate and reasonable 
sentence.  Defendant objects to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) calculation 
and the factual assertions set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) in the manner 
discussed below.  For all the reasons set forth in detail in this memorandum, defendant respectfully 
submits that a below guidelines sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the 
sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and is just in this case.  
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
The story of Okeke’s life prior to the events of this case was a one of a young woman 
immigrating to the United States and through hard work and a sense of responsibility achieving 
success as a professional and paving the way for a better life for her younger brother and sister.  
Along the way, Okeke consistently prioritized the needs of others over her own.  Though she was 
born in New York City, Okeke grew up primarily in Nigeria, raised by a Nigerian family.  As soon 
as she was able, Okeke came back to the United States and dedicated herself to education and hard 
work.  She successfully put herself through college and a master’s program and also served as the 
foundation for the immigration and education of her highly motivated and ultimately very 
successful siblings.  First, she supported the immigration of her younger sister and facilitated her 
educational pursuits, which culminated in a medical degree from Harvard Medical School and a 
promising career as an endocrinologist.  Next, she made it possible for her brother, the youngest 
sibling, to emigrate to the United States and she helped him in his studies, which resulted in a 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1482

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 2 
 
 
successful career in architecture.  In between, she married briefly and supported her similarly 
successful husband during their marriage as he pursued his academic pursuits, which culminated 
in his attending the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.  Along the 
way, Okeke continually put her own educational and professional aspirations aside to enable her 
to assist others, but she, too, ultimately completed a master’s degree in marketing and went to work 
in bank branch services, eventually rising to the level of branch manager, a job in which she took 
great pride. 
 
Okeke has many great accomplishments, as she is reminded every time she sees her siblings 
and their wonderful families, which now include a new generation of nieces and nephews in whose 
lives she continues to play an integral part.  Nevertheless, her career in banking is over, and she 
has had to support herself over the last few years by taking jobs for which she is vastly 
overqualified, including working as a salesperson in a furniture store.  She is keenly aware that her 
own decisions have contributed to the current position in which she finds herself, and she has a 
great deal of regret for the pain she has caused her loved ones.  She looks forward to demonstrating 
to the Court and the community that she is far more than the actions and events of this case and 
continuing to be a benefit to her family, friends, and social sphere. 
 
PERSONAL BACKGROUND 
 
Okeke was born to Nigerian immigrant parents in New York in 1972.  PSR ¶ 51.  Her father 
worked as a civil engineer and her mother worked in accounting.  PSR ¶ 54.  When she was eight 
years old, the family moved back to Nigeria in large part to be closer to her ill grandmother.  Id.  
The move drastically affected the family’s financial situation because her parents’ earnings were 
significantly reduced in Nigeria, and it was not always easy for them to provide for the family.  Id.  
Okeke writes in her letter to the court that the family lacked regular access to water, electricity, 
and basic amenities.1  Okeke and her younger brother and sister struggled with the move back to 
Nigeria both because of the financial hardships and because of difficulty assimilated culturally, 
including learning the language.  PSR ¶ 54.  This assimilation was particularly difficult for Okeke 
since she had spent the first eight years of her life in the United States.   
 
For as long as she can remember, Okeke vowed to return to the United States as soon as 
she was able, and she did so, without her family, after high school (in approximately 1992) when 
she came to New York to study.  Id.  She has remained in the city ever since.  Id.  She writes that 
life “was challenging” in those early days of her time in New York and that she “had to work 
various jobs while attending school, including at Caldor department store and at McDonald’s,” but 
she was “determined to graduate and persevere.” 
 
Her sister, Eyiuche Okeke, in her letter of support2 writes that, Okeke, while herself a 
student at CUNY, invited her after she graduated high school in Nigeria to come to New York in 
1993.  Eyiuche accepted her sister’s invitation, and the two lived together while both attended 
CUNY, working nights, weekends, and summers to make ends meet.  Eyiuche recalls being 
 
1 Okeke’s letter to the Court is attached as Exhibit A. 
2 Letters of support from family and friends are attached collectively as Exhibit B. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1483

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 3 
 
 
“nervous when I first shared about my dream of going to medical school because this meant that I 
could no longer contribute as much financially” because “I needed to take time to study more and 
explore opportunities that could prepare me for a career in medicine like hospital volunteer work 
and medical research.”  Okeke, as she has so often done in her life, was “excited” to put her sister’s 
needs before her own, as Eyiuche writes that she “encouraged me to go” and “took fewer classes 
during the semester so that she could work more.”  Okeke recalls that due to the demands of her 
sister’s studies, Okeke “had to take care of [both of] us,” which she did without complaint.  The 
result was that they both graduated college in the same year even though Okeke had started earlier.  
According to Eyiuche, Okeke continued to support her emotionally and financially during medical 
school, and would come to Boston to be supportive whenever she was needed. 
 
In 1996, Okeke again facilitated the arrival from Nigeria of a sibling, her younger brother 
Nnadozie Okeke.  Nnadozie writes that from that time on, Okeke “has continued to act as our 
mother in the US and will not hesitate to give us the shirt off her back” and as the “backbone of 
the family who as the eldest child, has always been there to support her parents and younger 
siblings throughout their lives.”  PSR ¶ 53.  Okeke’s longtime friend, Obonne Obiaya, writes that 
“Anuli is the most generous friend in our friend group, noting, among other things, her support of 
her siblings, and writing that she “allowed her younger brother to pursue his architectural studies 
unencumbered” and allowing him to become “a successful architect in New York.”  In addition to 
a prosperous career, Nnadozie would go on to marry and start a beautiful family in the New York 
area. 
 
Okeke’s friend, Obiaya, notes that several years later Okeke again became a provider, this 
time for her then-husband.  She writes that Okeke was “the sole breadwinner,” allowing her spouse 
“to complete a 4 year [degree] in three years debt free” and “supported him all the way to the 
Wharton School of Business.”  Obiaya notes that unfortunately the marriage came to an end shortly 
after Okeke’s husband completed his MBA, though Okeke “remained a steadfast friend and 
exhibited no bitterness” thereafter.  
 
  PSR ¶ 60.  Since that time, she has turned to spiritual guidance through her church in 
times of great stress.  Id. 
 
While aiding those around her, Okeke also worked tirelessly on her own educational and 
professional journey.  She graduated from York College CUNY with a bachelor’s degree in 
economics in September 1998.  PSR ¶ 62.  She attended and graduated with a master’s degree in 
marketing from Mercy University in New York in 2006.  Id.  While still in school, Okeke writes 
that she worked as a bank teller, initially for Greenpoint Bank and Capital One Bank.  Later, she 
moved to Washington Mutual and subsequently she worked for Chase Bank, which acquired the 
branch in which she had worked and at which she became a branch manager.  PSR ¶ 68.  In 2012, 
Okeke left Chase for Popular Bank where she worked as a branch manager until she was fired in 
late 2020 as a result of the events of this case. 
 
Sopia Okeke, Nnadozie’s wife and Okeke’s sister-in-law, writes of Okeke’s warmth and 
devoted commitment to her family, noting how when Sophia began her relationship with 
Nnadozie, “Anuli welcomed me as a sister and friend, teaching me about Nigerian culture and the 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1484

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 4 
 
 
family’s traditions.”  Sophia also notes how “invaluable” Okeke has been in caring for her nieces 
and nephews.  She writes that when her twins were born in 2014, Okeke “stayed overnight in our 
home, helped feed the twins, and gave me much-needed rest during a challenging time” and that 
“[h]er care and guidance helped me navigate the overwhelming experience or becoming a mother.  
Sophia writes that Okeke has continued to be “a dedicated and loving aunt who is always present” 
including during the birth of Sophia and Nnadozie’s third child in 2018.  Chisom Nwazojie, 
Eyiuche’s husband and Okeke’s brother-in-law, concurs with this assessment.  He writes that 
Okeke is “a pillar of the family,” recalling that “she always visited to care and encourage [our] 
kids to be the best versions of themselves.”  He continues, “I will always be indebted to Anuli for 
being a constant source of strength for my wife and I.” 
 
Okeke’s role in her family has only increased in recent years as she has been called upon 
to help care for her mother.  In 2016, Okeke’s father, 
, died at age 76.  PSR ¶ 51.  Since that time, Okeke’s mother, 
 
has become increasingly reliant 
on Okeke.  Id.  Eyiuche writes that Okeke “has taken over [their] mom’s household in Nigeria.”  
Nnadozie writes Okeke acts as “a major caregiver for our ailing mother,” including arranging her 
regular trips to the United States for medical appointments.  Okeke’s lifelong friend, Ada Offurum, 
writes that Okeke “has been a devoted caretaker for her family,” “caring for her late father until 
his passing and continuing to care for her mother.” 
 
Various supporters note the critical role the Catholic Church plays in Okeke’s life and the 
charitable work she has done in connection with her faith.  Offrum writes that Catholicism “plays 
a central role” in Okeke’s life and credits Okeke for being “instrumental in encouraging my own 
spiritual growth.”  Eyiuche writes that her sister “is deeply religious and actively participates in 
her church community and in the Igbo community.”  Sophia notes that Okeke “is a woman of 
strong Christian faith and regularly attends Times Square Church and St. Francis of Assisi in 
Manhattan” and “contributes actively to her church community with dedication and compassion.  
Chisom writes that “[h]er faith is her moral compass and it guides her daily actions and choices.  
He also notes that Okeke’s “kindness and generosity” and her participation “in our annual charity 
events at My Brother’s Keeper Christmas Assistance [and] Summer MBK Family Walk.”  Okeke 
writes that she also actively contributes to the Nigerian church community.  Obiaya writes that 
Okeke “administers prayers for the sick [and] volunteers on the bereavement committee providing 
comfort to the newly bereaved with home visits.” 
 
Okeke, reflecting on all that she has done and the damage it has caused, writes that she 
sincerely regrets her conduct and the manner in which she has let down those things to which she 
is most “deeply committed,” her “family, faith, friends, and community.”  She further notes that 
she “failed to meet the expectations of a bank officer, and as a result, I have lost my reputation and 
career.”  The past five years have been a tremendous struggle for Okeke.  Though she was never 
remotely affluent, she had finally reached a point in her career where she could live relatively 
comfortably on her branch manager salary of $89,000 per year in her one-bedroom apartment in 
the Bronx.  PSR ¶¶ 55, 67.  Since losing the ability to work in banking, Okeke spent a substantial 
period of time unemployed before obtaining employment as a salesperson at Macy’s and more 
recently at Ashley Furniture in the Bronx, making less than $30,000 in annual salary plus 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1485

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 5 
 
 
commissions.  PSR ¶¶ 63-66.  Nevertheless, Okeke has turned to her faith and family for support 
and remains resolute and optimistic regarding the future.  She writes of her appreciation for the 
Court:  “Thank you for your professionalism and treating me with dignity throughout this process.”  
 
VAGARIES OF THE FRAUD GUIDELINES 
 
Okeke respectfully submits that the vagaries of the Sentencing Guideline section applicable 
to fraud offenses, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, commonly referred to as the “fraud guideline” are a well-
recognized and important circumstance of her offense that warrants a considerable downward 
variance.  Section § 2B1.1 is not tethered to any empirical data and “amount of loss” mechanically 
drives the offense level generated by the fraud guideline.     
 
The inherent inequities in the robotic application of the fraud guideline were discussed in 
detail by the Second Circuit in United States v. Algahaim, 842 F.3d 796, 800 (2d Cir. 2016).  In  
Algahaim, the Court agreed with the long-standing criticisms of the guideline, finding that the 
Sentencing Commission, in promulgating Section 2B1.1, “let the amount of loss, finely calibrated 
into sixteen categories, become the principal determinant of the adjusted offense level and hence 
the corresponding sentencing range” thereby causing an “unusualness . . . that a sentencing court 
is entitled to consider” in determining the appropriateness of a non-Guidelines sentence.  Id.  While 
recognizing that the Sentencing Commission was “entitled” to use this approach, the Court 
expressed its concern regarding this method of calculating an appropriate criminal sentence and 
noted that it lacked any precedential support.  Id.   
 
In United States v. Johnson, No. 16 Cr. 457 (NGG), 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 71275, at *11-
13 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2018) (available at https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-johnson-
2478), Judge Nicholas Garaufis of this Court heeded the Second Circuit’s admonition, explaining, 
in part, his rationale for a below-Guidelines sentence for a defendant convicted of a large-scale 
fraud as follows: 
 
As far as this court can tell, the Sentencing Commission’s loss-enhancement 
numbers do not result from any reasoned determination of how the punishment can 
best fit the crime, nor any approximation of the moral seriousness of the crime. It 
is no wonder that Judge Stefan Underhill, concurring in a recent Second Circuit 
opinion, called the loss enhancement Guideline “fundamentally flawed, especially 
as loss amounts climb.” United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366, 380 (2d Cir. 2013) 
(Underhill, J., concurring); see also United States v. Gupta, 904 F. Supp. 2d 349, 
351 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Rakoff, J.) (“By making a Guidelines sentence turn, for all 
practical purposes, on [loss enhancement], the Sentencing Commission ... 
effectively guaranteed that many such sentences would be irrational on their face.”). 
Given the feeble underpinnings of the loss enhancement, it is particularly galling 
that this factor is often more or less solely responsible for a white-collar offender's 
Guidelines sentence.  Accordingly, Judge Underhill opined that, because the loss 
Guideline “was not developed by the Sentencing Commission using an empirical 
approach based on data about past sentencing practices . . . district judges can and 
should exercise their discretion when deciding whether or not to follow the 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1486

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 6 
 
 
sentencing advice that guideline provides.”  See Corsey, 723 F.3d at 379 (op. of 
Underhill, J.). I agree with Judge Underhill, and refuse to mechanistically impose 
such an illogical sentence. That this situation continues unabated is a great shame 
for the many offenders sentenced under this Guideline who do not receive a 
sentence that makes any sense for the actual crime of conviction. 
 
Id. 
 
The undiscerning application of this loss amount enhancement to Okeke, which increases 
her Guidelines sentencing range by over six times (from 18-24 months to 108-135 months), clearly 
implicates the concerns expressed by the Second Circuit in Algahaim and Judge Garaufis in 
Johnson.  The sixteen loss categories that are set forth in §2B1.1 are not based on any empirical 
data or any logical policy concerns.  This lack of proportionality is the exact reason that the Second 
Circuit identified this bracketing procedure as “unusual.”  Id.  The Sentencing Commission has 
arbitrarily attributed certain loss amounts to trigger an increase in a defendant’s offense level.  
However, these attributions are based on nothing.  For example, a fraud that involved more than 
$6,500 increases the offense level by 2 points, and a loss of over $15,000 increases it by 4 points.  
Absent is any policy or explanation as to why a difference of $8,500.00 doubles the increase.  
Equally perplexing is the fact that the next two-point increase does not occur until the fraud causes 
greater than $40,000 of loss.  Thus, when looking consecutively at two of the sixteen “finely 
calibrated” categories, an $8,500 difference in loss amount has equal importance and effect as a 
$25,000 difference.  Taking this analysis to the extreme, the difference between a scheme 
involving a loss amount of $6,500.01 and one involving a loss amount of $15,000.01 is two offense 
levels.  The difference between a scheme involving a loss amount of $250,000,000.01 and one 
involving a loss amount of $550,000,000.01 is also two offense levels.  As a result, a delta of 
$8,500 and $300,000,000 may have an identical impact on a Guidelines calculation.  This absurdity 
is the practical result of essentially random loss attributions made by the Sentencing Commission 
in §2B1.1.   
 
 
This inequity is exacerbated when separate upward adjustments such as the § 3B1.1(a) 
“Role in the Offense” is applied, as is the case here.  The 4-level leadership enhancement applied 
to Okeke increased her offense level from 70-87 months to 108-135 months, a near 3 year increase 
at the bottom of the Guidelines range.  Were the loss enhancement not applied, the increase for 
leadership role would be an increase from 18-24 months to 30-37 months, a 1-year increase at the 
bottom of the range.  As a result, the random valuation of loss amount causes an identical (non-
loss amount) enhancement to trigger entirely inequitable increases in a defendant’s total offense 
level.      
 
 
Okeke respectfully submits that the mechanical application of § 2B1.1 results in an 
inequitable Guidelines calculation.  She respectfully submits that this substantial inequity is a 
nature and circumstance of the offense that warrants a downward variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1487

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 7 
 
 
§ 3553(a).   
 
OBJECTIONS TO THE PSR 
 
 
In paragraph 24 of the PSR, Probation states, “The defendant utilized sophisticated means 
as part of this scheme by requiring borrowers to sign “starter” checks, which were used to purchase 
cashier’s checks, which were used to pay defendant unauthorized commissions.  As such, a 2-level 
enhancement is warranted pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10(C).”  As an initial matter, defendant 
denies that she “required” borrowers to sign starter checks or that the checks were used to cause 
her to receive unauthorized commissions.  However, even assuming the accuracy of these facts, 
arguendo, the use of starter checks is hardly indicative  of sophisticated means.  In fact, use of 
starter checks is indicative of a lack of sophistication.  See, e.g., “Paper is becoming extinct: why 
checks are now the dinosaurs of payments,” RBC Capital Markets (available at 
https://www.rbccm.com/en/story/2024/08/paper-is-becoming-extinct-why-checks-are-now-the-
dinosaurs-of-payments); Cassie Bottorff, “Paper checks are dying. Here’s what you should use 
instead,” Fortune, Jan. 23, 2025 (available at https://fortune.com/article/paper-checks-are-dead-
what-to-use-instead/); Jessica Dicker, “The death of the personal check: As retailers move toward 
‘check zero,’ here’s what that means for you,” CNBC, Jul. 19, 2024 (available at 
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/19/the-death-of-the-personal-check-retailers-move-toward-
check-zero.html). 
 
 
“Sophisticated means” requires “especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct 
pertaining to the execution or concealment of the offense.”  USSG § 2B1.1, Application Note 9.  
Additionally, the enhancement is limited to cases where a “defendant engaged in or caused the 
conduct constituting sophisticated means,” and  the basis of the enhancement must be the 
defendant’s own conduct.  U.S Sentencing Commission, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines 
25 (April 30, 2015), http://www.usssc.gov/sites/default/ files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-
friendly-amendments/20150430_RF-Amendments.pdf.  The act of providing account holders a 
check is simply not complex or intricate conduct, much less “especially” complex or intricate.  
Additionally, no evidence exists that Okeke caused others to obtain starter checks.  For these 
reasons, the conduct identified by Probation in Paragraph 24 of the PSR is not a sufficient basis 
for the application of an enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10(C). 
 
Paragraphs 16-22 of the PSR describe offense and other conduct allegedly committed by 
Okeke.  Because Okeke pled not guilty and the case proceeded to trial, she respectfully objects to 
the factual allegations in these paragraphs.  
 
CONCLUSION 
  
For the above-stated reasons, Okeke respectfully submits that there are numerous 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3553(a) factors that each taken individually, and with greater impact, in the collective, warrant 
a below-guidelines sentence.   
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1488

Honorable Federic Block 
Page 8 
 
 
Thank you for Your Honor’s consideration of this letter.     
  
Very truly yours,  
  
Sanford Talkin  
Sanford Talkin  
Noam Greenspan 
  
Cc: 
AUSA Chand Edwards-Balfour (by ECF) 
AUSA Adam Amir (by ECF) 
 
Trial Attorney Jennifer Bilinkas (by ECF) 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00020-FB     Document 62     Filed 02/28/25     Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1489

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.62.0.pdf

Size

223,610 bytes

SHA-256

33329137623bb2c8f82cc1dd326c61ea649abc066a78f92996ae158ab740efc4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nyed.474435.62.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)