United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20394
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ADESHINA OLANREWAJU LAWAL
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-517-ALL
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Adeshina Olanrewaju Lawal appeals his convictions and sentences for
attempting bank fraud, possessing a forged or counterfeit security, and aiding
and abetting the same. He argues that the district court erred by denying his
requested jury instruction on the defense of entrapment; enhancing his sentence
for obstruction of justice; and enhancing his sentence because a substantial
portion of his fraudulent scheme occurred outside of the United States.
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-20394
The district court was not required to instruct Lawal’s jury on the defense
of entrapment. Although Lawal’s trial testimony indicated that he was
pressured by a Government informant during the course of his offense, Lawal
unequivocally stated that he agreed to participate in the offense only after a
third party threatened his life. Lawal did not make a prima facie showing of
evidence sufficient to support a reasonable jury's finding of entrapment.
See United States v. Ogle, 328 F.3d 182, 185-88 (5th Cir. 2003).
The district court did not err by enhancing Lawal’s sentence pursuant to
U.S.S.G.§ 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. The district court’s finding that
Lawal’s sworn post-arrest statement and Lawal’s trial testimony were
inconsistent was plausible in light of the record as a whole. See United States
v. Creech, 408 F.3d 264, 270 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 777 (2005).
Committing perjury is conduct for which the enhancement may be applied. Id.
at 270-71; § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(b)).
Finally, the district court did not err by enhancing Lawal’s sentence
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(B), based on a finding that a substantial part
of his fraudulent scheme was committed from outside the United States. The
finding was plausible in light of the record read as a whole.
AFFIRMED.
2