IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20799
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YEMI ODELAKON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-450-2
--------------------
June 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Yemi Odelakon appeals from his sentence for conspiracy to
commit bank fraud and possession of counterfeit securities. He
contends that the district court erred by failing to make
findings regarding the attribution of losses to him, even failing
to adopt the Presentence Report (PSR). He alleges that he
presented rebuttal evidence in the form of an FBI agent’s
testimony at a probable cause and detention hearing; that he
himself denied at rearraignment that he had met a fellow
participant in the conspiracy or given him any checks; and that
the district court had ruled, in a suppression ruling, that a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 99-20799
-2-
coconspirator’s activities that had resulted in a state-court
prosecution were unrelated to the federal case, yet the amounts
attributed to the coconspirator in that case were attributed to
him anyway.
The district court implicitly adopted the PSR by rejecting
Odelakon’s objections to it and by using the sentencing range
indicated in the report. United States v. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d
1028, 1030 (5th Cir. 1992). Any testimony regarding the offenses
with which Odelakon was charged was not binding as to the actual
amount attributed at sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
The allegation in the PSR regarding Odelakon’s involvement with
the other participant was based on an a law-enforcement interview
of that participant. Odelakon did not refer to his testimony at
rearraignment, nor did he put on rebuttal evidence. The district
court was free to adopt the PSR without further inquiry regarding
Odelakon’s involvement with that participant. United States v.
Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally, were
the amount attributed to the state-court case eliminated from
consideration, the amount attributed to Odelakon would remain
greater than $800,000, the relevant amount for guideline
sentencing purposes. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(L). Odelakon was
sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of the
applicable sentencing range. U.S.S.G. § 5A, Sentencing Table.
Any error in considering the amount relevant to the state-court
case (and we do not assume that any error occurred) was harmless.
Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992).
AFFIRMED.