Order Overruling Objections and Denying Motion to Dismiss — United States v. Bernard Okojie

Summary

An order in United States v. Bernard Okojie, No. 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, filed January 17, 2023 as Doc. 57. After a de novo review, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 53) and overrules the defendant's objections (Dkt. No. 55). The order describes the defendant's argument that the conspiracy counts are insufficient because the transactions alleged involve entities he wholly owns and controls and individuals not named in the Indictment. It finds that the Indictment meets the standard set in Hamling v. United States and that the cases the defendant cites anew present nothing the Magistrate Judge did not consider. The Court denies the motion to dismiss Counts One and Three and corresponding forfeiture allegations (Dkt. No. 29); the order carries the signature block of Judge Lisa Godbey Wood.

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

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 57 Filed 01/17/23 Page1lof3

In the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Georgia
Sabannah Dibision

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *
*
* CASE NO.: 4:22-cr-84
Vv. *
*
BERNARD OKOJIE *
*
ORDER

The Court has conducted an independent and de novo review
of the entire record and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 53. Defendant filed
Objections to this Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 55.

In his Objections, Defendant acknowledges the allegations
contained in the Indictment “‘point to the potential agreement
supporting the conspiracy charged[]’” but contends the
allegations are not sufficient to allow him to know what
agreements were made or to identify the parties to these
agreements to prepare for defense at trial. Id. at 2 (quoting
Dkt. No. 53 at 6). Defendant states the allegations of the
Indictment identify a group of transactions involving him and

entities that he wholly owns and controls, and, therefore,

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 57 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

cannot support a conspiracy. In addition, Defendant states the
Indictment sets forth other transactions with individuals who
are only identified in discovery materials but who are not named
in the Indictment as defendants or unindicted co-conspirators.
Id. Defendant contends there is nothing in the discovery
materials indicating the grand jurors were made aware a person
cannot conspire with his wholly owned and controlled entities.
Thus, Defendant concludes the conspiracy counts are
insufficient, as one cannot determine if the grand jury relied
on an appropriate theory of the crimes when considering the
charges. Id. at 2-3.

Defendant made these same assertions in support of his
Motion to Dismiss, including citations to some of the same
caselaw. Compare Dkt. No. 29 at 1-3 with Dkt. No. 55 at 2-3.
The Magistrate Judge considered Defendant’s arguments in support
of his Motion to Dismiss and correctly rejected them. Dkt. No.
55 at 3-7. The cases Defendant cites anew in his Objections

merely support arguments the Court has considered and rejected.

For example, in Hamling v. United States, the United States

Supreme Court determined an indictment generally is sufficient
if it sets forth the words of the statute itself, if “‘those
words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any
uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary

to constitute the offence to be punished.’” 418 U.S. 87, 117

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

Case 4:22-cr-00084-LGW-BWC Document 57 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

(1974) (quoting United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612

(1882)). The Indictment in this case meets the standard set
forth in Hamling. Defendant also cites United States v.

Simmons, 96 U.S. 360, 362-64 (1877), but that case stands for

the general principle that an indictment is generally sufficient
if its sets out the statutory elements and apprises the accused
of the nature of the accusation against him. Simmons does not,
however, demonstrate the Indictment in this case falls short of
those requirements. These cases present nothing the Magistrate
Judge did not consider or anything new for the Court’s
consideration.

The assertions Defendant makes in his Objections have been
considered and appropriately rejected. Thus, the Court
OVERRULES Defendant’s Objections and CONCURS with and ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of
the Court. The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Counts One and Three of the Indictment and Corresponding
Portions of the Forfeiture Allegations, dkt. no. 29.

SO ORDERED, this 7 day of anne , 2023.

Hex. LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.57.0.pdf

Size

330,796 bytes

SHA-256

869c4f6f7f071c81fc8675138adad999b98c16bf99b1b2ca3359baa5758edfd8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87222.57.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)