United States v. Dikeocha, Ebenezer ( 2000 )


Menu:
  • In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    No. 99-3235
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    EBENEZER DIKEOCHA,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
    Division.
    No. 90 CR 654--James F. Holderman, Judge.
    ARGUED APRIL 12, 2000--DECIDED JUNE 27, 2000
    Before CUDAHY, COFFEY and KANNE, Circuit
    Judges.
    COFFEY, Circuit Judge. In October of
    1990, Ebenezer Dikeocha, the defendant-
    appellant in this case, was charged in a
    superseding indictment in the Northern
    District of Illinois, along with three
    other individuals, with conspiracy to
    distribute and distribution of heroin.
    See 21 U.S.C. sec.sec. 846 and 841(a)(1).
    Dikeocha and his co-conspirators, Vincent
    Nwafor, Gibson Nwafor, and Charles
    Emenogha were convicted following
    separate jury trials./1 Dikeocha’s co-
    conspirators were convicted in 1991, and
    this court later affirmed each of their
    convictions and sentences. See United
    States v. Emenogha, 
    1 F.3d 473
    (7th Cir.
    1993). Dikeocha was not tried until March
    of 1999 because he was a fugitive, but
    after he was apprehended, and following a
    jury trial, he was also convicted on all
    three counts charged.
    At Dikeocha’s sentencing, the district
    court relied, in part, on the testimony
    of Larry Palmer, an unindicted co-
    conspirator, who testified on behalf of
    the government at the 1991 trial of
    Dikeocha’s co-conspirators. The court
    sentenced Dikeocha to 188 months’
    imprisonment, $2500 in restitution, a
    $2500 fine, a $150 special assessment,
    and five years’ supervised release.
    Dikeocha appeals his conviction and his
    sentence. We affirm.
    I.   BACKGROUND
    In August of 1989, Sergeant Regina
    Evans, an undercover officer of the
    Chicago Police Department, purchased
    heroin from co-conspirator Vincent Nwafor
    during a meeting arranged by Nwafor’s
    girlfriend, Darlene Sumpter, who was
    acting as a confidential informant.
    Sergeant Evans again purchased heroin
    from Nwafor in September and December of
    1989.
    On January 25, 1990, Nwafor told
    Sergeant Evans that he was leaving the
    country to obtain heroin, but that his
    associates would probably be able to
    procure drugs for her while he was out of
    the country if any became available. On
    March 23, 1990, Sergeant Evans purchased
    a total of 53.7 grams of heroin from the
    defendant, Ebenezer Dikeocha, a/k/a
    "Ebeny," a/k/a "Ahijo," during a meeting
    in a parking lot in Chicago, Illinois. In
    a taped conversation with the undercover
    officer on that date, Ebeny stated that
    he and Nwafor "work together," and that
    "Vince is my cousin." A check of the
    charges on Ebeny’s cell phone revealed
    that the telephone was billed to the home
    address of "Ebenezer Dikeocha."/2
    In late March of 1990, Sumpter, who was
    cooperating with the Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA) at the time, advised
    the DEA that she was planning a trip to
    Nigeria to visit her boyfriend, Vincent
    Nwafor. DEA officials advised Sumpter not
    to travel to Nigeria and further that her
    bags would be searched at the airport.
    She disregarded this advice and arrived
    at O’Hare International Airport on March
    31, 1990, to effectuate her plan to
    travel to Nigeria. The U.S. Customs
    officials at O’Hare intercepted her and
    questioned her once she had completed
    checking four suitcases and two U-Haul
    boxes. Although Sumpter told the Customs
    officers that she had less than $1000
    with her, a search of her checked luggage
    and boxes revealed $99,940 concealed in
    laundry detergent boxes. Forty of the
    bills matched the serial numbers of those
    used in the March 23, 1990, undercover
    purchase from "Ebeny" and were found in a
    box with "Ebenezer" written on the side.
    Other items in her baggage seized at
    O’Hare that day contained electronic
    equipment bearing the names "Ebenezer
    Dikeocha Ahijo" and "Ebenezer Dikeocha."
    Still other boxes containing cash and
    more equipment were labeled "Ebeny,"
    "Vin," and "Vincent." Sumpter also was
    found to be carrying a letter addressed
    to co-conspirator Vincent Nwafor signed
    by "Ahijo" which stated "it will be
    better if we can pull all the resources
    together to make a big buy," and "with
    what (I) am enclosing . . . that will be
    enough to purchase 5 for both of us."
    Sumpter was in the custody of U.S.
    Customs officials at O’Hare while her
    bags were being searched, and after the
    search was completed Customs agents
    turned her over to the DEA. Sumpter
    agreed to cooperate further with the DEA
    so as not to be charged. Subsequently,
    she made taped telephone calls to Ebeny
    wherein they had a discussion concerning
    the money she was carrying at the time of
    her apprehension at O’Hare.
    On July 25, 1990, co-conspirator Charles
    Emenogha was arrested at O’Hare in
    possession of 997 grams of heroin. In a
    tape recorded conversation with Larry
    Palmer, who was cooperating with law
    enforcement, co-conspirator Gibson Nwafor
    stated that the heroin carried by
    Emenogha at the time of his arrest at
    O’Hare belonged to four or five people,
    including Dikeocha. Gibson Nwafor also
    stated during the recorded conversation
    that Dikeocha had met Emenogha in
    Brussels, but that Dikeocha had flown
    separately to New York while Emenogha
    flew into Chicago.
    Co-conspirators Emenogha and Gibson
    Nwafor were arrested on drug charges on
    September 9, 1990, and co-conspirator
    Vincent Nwafor was arrested on September
    10, 1990. Although a warrant had been
    issued for Dikeocha’s arrest, United
    States Marshals were unable to arrest him
    contemporaneously with his co-
    conspirators because he had departed for
    Nigeria earlier in September of 1990.
    On December 7, 1995, an individual using
    the name "Mario Taylor" and the address
    of Dikeocha’s girlfriend, Diedre Brown,
    made application for and received a pass
    port. The photograph accompanying the
    application was that of the defendant,
    Dikeocha. On March 20, 1997, Dikeocha
    attempted to enter the United States
    using the fraudulent passport bearing
    Mario Taylor’s name with his (Dikeocha’s)
    picture, but he was refused entry. After
    questioning by Immigration and
    Nationalization authorities, the
    defendant admitted that he was not Mario
    Taylor, and that his real name was Ebeny
    Dikeocha.
    On October 16, 1997, Dikeocha was
    arrested, at Diedre Brown’s apartment, on
    the drug charges referred to in the 1990
    indictment. It was discovered at the time
    of Dikeocha’s arrest that he had gained
    entry into the United States using a
    fraudulent passport bearing the name of
    "Lawrence Taylor."/3
    Like his co-conspirators who had been
    found guilty years before, Dikeocha went
    to trial before a jury and was found
    guilty of two counts of distributing
    heroin and one count of conspiring to
    distribute heroin. On appeal, Dikeocha
    challenges his conviction before the jury
    and alleges that the jury was improperly
    allowed to consider a document from the
    INS files linking him to Vincent Nwafor.
    He also challenges his sentence, arguing
    that the trial judge improperly relied at
    sentencing on the transcribed testimony
    of Larry Palmer in determining Dikeocha’s
    relevant conduct.
    II.    ISSUES
    On appeal, we consider: 1) whether the
    district court abused its discretion in
    admitting in evidence an INS record
    filled out by one of Dikeocha’s co-
    conspirators when seeking entry into the
    United States; and 2) whether it was
    error for the trial court to rely on the
    testimony of a government witness (Larry
    Palmer), who had previously testified in
    the trial of the defendant’s co-
    conspirators regarding Dikeocha’s drug
    smuggling and selling activities, at
    sentencing because the testimony was
    unreliable.
    III.    DISCUSSION
    A.    Admission at Trial of Nwafor’s INS
    File
    Dikeocha objects to the admission at
    trial of a document from Vincent Nwafor’s
    INS file. The document contained a
    statement from Vincent Nwafor reciting
    that he had a brother named Geoffrey
    Nwafor; Dikeocha had told the INS that he
    had a cousin by the same name. Thus,
    Dikeocha argues that if the jury believed
    that Vincent Nwafor had a brother named
    Geoffrey Nwafor, and the defendant had a
    cousin named Geoffrey Nwafor, then
    Vincent and Dikeocha were in all
    probability cousins (unless there were
    two separate individuals with the same
    rather unusual name of "Geoffrey Nwafor,"
    both with relatives who sought entry into
    the United States from Nigeria).
    Dikeocha claims that the document from
    the INS file is inadmissible hearsay and
    also is unduly prejudicial because it
    served to establish his identity as Ebeny
    and his link to Vincent Nwafor for the
    jury. He argues that there was evidence
    offered at trial that one of the
    individuals who had sold drugs to
    Sergeant Evans was a cousin of Nwafor’s
    and that the INS record tended to
    establish that he in fact was Vincent’s
    cousin. In short, Dikeocha argues that
    the document from Vincent Nwafor’s INS
    file was essential to establish that the
    "Ebeny" who had sold drugs to Sgt. Evans
    was, indeed, Ebenezer Dikeocha.
    As we stated in United States v. Aldaco,
    
    201 F.3d 979
    , 984 (7th Cir. 2000)
    (internal quotations and citations
    omitted):
    We review a district court’s decision to
    admit evidence for an abuse of
    discretion, affording great deference to
    the trial court’s determination of the
    admissibility of evidence because of the
    trial judge’s first-hand exposure to the
    witnesses and the evidence as a whole,
    and because of the judge’s familiarity
    with the case and ability to gauge the
    impact of the evidence in the context of
    the entire proceeding.
    However, even if the admission of the
    information from Nwafor’s INS file was an
    abuse of discretion, this court would not
    reverse if the admission of the evidence
    was harmless error. See United States v.
    Hardin, 
    209 F.3d 652
    , 664 (7th Cir. 2000)
    (citation omitted).
    Evidentiary errors are deemed harmless,
    and thus not grounds "for reversing a
    jury’s verdict," unless they had "’a
    substantial and injurious effect or
    influence on the jury’s verdict.’" United
    States v. Jarrett, 
    133 F.3d 519
    , 529 (7th
    Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). We are of
    the opinion that the reception in
    evidence of Vincent Nwafor’s INS file
    linking him to the defendant through the
    common relative Geoffrey Nwafor did not
    have a "substantial or injurious" effect
    on the jury’s ultimate decision that the
    Ebenezer Dikeocha who was on trial was
    the same person as "Ebeny" who had sold
    drugs to the undercover Sergeant, Regina
    Evans. A review of the record clearly
    reveals that there was substantial other
    evidence demonstrating that the defendant
    was, in fact, "Ebeny."
    First and foremost, Sergeant Regina
    Evans, who had previously participated in
    an undercover face-to-face heroin
    transaction with Ebeny, made an in-court
    identification of Ebenezer Dikeocha as
    the same man from whom she had bought
    heroin in a parking lot on March 23,
    1990. Sergeant Evans testified that the
    drug transaction with Ebeny was extremely
    memorable because it was the largest drug
    buy of her career, some $10,000 worth of
    heroin. This in-court identification from
    the officer alone would provide
    sufficient grounds for a jury to conclude
    that the defendant, Ebenezer Dikeocha,
    was Ebeny, but the record reflects that
    there was a wealth of additional evidence
    in support of this conclusion: 1) Ebeny
    acknowledged in a tape-recorded conversa
    tion with Sergeant Evans in March of 1990
    that he was Vincent Nwafor’s cousin, and
    Ebenezer Dikeocha’s INS application
    listed an individual with the same
    unusual surname, Nwafor, as being his
    cousin; 2) the drug dealer who sold
    Sergeant Evans heroin in 1990 used the
    name "Ebeny," and the government offered
    testimony from an INS agent that the
    defendant told the INS in 1997 that his
    name was "Ebeny Dikeocha;" 3) boxes
    seized during the search of Sumpter’s
    baggage in 1990 at O’Hare airport were
    labeled "Ebenezer Dikeocha," "Ebeny", and
    "Ebenezer Dikeocha Ahijo;" and 4) the
    cell phone used in some of the drug
    transactions with Sergeant Evans in 1990
    was registered to an individual residing
    at Ebenezer Dikeocha’s home address. Thus
    even without the information contained in
    Vincent Nwafor’s INS file, the record
    reflects that there was more than
    sufficient evidence from which a
    reasonable jury could have concluded that
    the defendant Ebenezer Dikeocha was one-
    in-the-same as Ebeny, the heroin dealer.
    Therefore, even assuming that the trial
    judge’s decision to admit Nwafor’s INS
    document was improper, we hold that it
    was harmless error.
    B.   Reliance on Palmer’s Testimony in
    Determining Relevant Conduct
    Dikeocha also argues on appeal that the
    judge improperly relied on the
    transcripts of statements made by Larry
    Palmer, an unindicted co-conspirator, who
    testified during the 1991 trial of
    Dikeocha’s co-conspirators./4 Palmer’s
    testimony from the previous trial
    included accounts of several drug
    smuggling expeditions involving himself,
    Vincent and Gibson Nwafor, Charles
    Emenogha, the defendant, Ebenezer
    Dikeocha, and others. Dikeocha claims
    that Palmer’s testimony linking him to
    3.5 kilograms of heroin, an amount which
    the trial judge found to be
    "conservative," was untrustworthy.
    "[I]t is the sentencing judge alone who,
    based upon the evidence received, decides
    the identity and quantity of the drug
    distributed in an offense. . . . [I]n
    making these findings, he consider[s] the
    credibility, knowledge, and experience of
    the witnesses and determine[s] the
    reliability of a permissibly-broad range
    of evidence, including hearsay." United
    States v. Branch 
    195 F.3d 928
    , 934 (7th
    Cir. 1999). Thus, "[w]e review
    deferentially, looking only for clear er
    ror, a district court’s calculation of
    drug quantities under the guidelines."
    United States v. Robinson, 
    164 F.3d 1068
    ,
    1070 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    120 S. Ct. 628
    (1999). Further, the information
    relied upon by the district court for
    purposes of determining relevant conduct
    at sentencing need not be proven beyond a
    reasonable doubt, but rather the
    testimony relied upon by the court must
    possess a "sufficient indicia of
    reliability to support its probable
    accuracy." 
    Id. (citation omitted);
    see
    also United States v. Jackson, 
    207 F.3d 910
    , 920-21 (7th Cir. 2000).
    We reject Dikeocha’s assertion that the
    trial court improperly relied upon Larry
    Palmer’s testimony. The court’s ruling
    that Palmer’s testimony at the previous
    trial possessed sufficient indicia of
    reliability was proper in that his
    testimony implicating Dikeocha was
    detailed, based upon personal knowledge,
    and subject to a thorough cross-
    examination by three attorneys acting on
    behalf of Dikeocha’s co-conspirators,
    resulting in what amounts to almost 100
    pages of trial transcript. The three
    different attorneys representing
    Dikeocha’s co-conspirators vigorously
    cross-examined Palmer at trial, grilling
    him extensively on topics like his
    potential bias, his deal with the
    government, his own heroin dealing, his
    involvement in insurance fraud, and so
    on./5 Furthermore, Palmer’s testimony
    regarding Dikeocha’s participation in the
    conspiracy was consistent with, and
    supported by, other testimony presented
    at Dikeocha’s trial. Finally, Dikeocha
    never saw fit to present any evidence to
    contradict Palmer’s testimony that he was
    responsible for 3.5 kilograms of heroin.
    See United States v. Amerson, 
    185 F.3d 676
    , 689 (7th Cir. 1998) (A defendant’s
    self-serving assertions may be
    discredited by the court when they find
    no support in "any facts, any exhibits,
    evidence, and/or logical reasoning.").
    A trial judge’s determination of the
    amount of drugs constituting the
    defendant’s relevant conduct will not be
    set aside unless we were to find clear
    error in the court’s findings upon review
    or it was established that it was based
    upon unreliable information. See
    
    Robinson, 164 F.3d at 1070
    . We hold that
    the trial court’s determination of the
    drug quantity constituting Dikeocha’s
    relevant conduct for sentencing purposes
    was not clearly erroneous because there
    is far more than a sufficient indicia of
    reliability to support the probable
    accuracy of the 1991 trial testimony of
    the absent witness, Palmer.
    The defendant’s conviction and sentence
    are
    AFFIRMED.
    /1 In United States v. Emenogha, 
    1 F.3d 473
    , 476 (7th
    Cir. 1993), this court described the key players
    in the conspiracy as follows:
    Vincent Nwafor, the prime mover in the
    enterprise, organized the purchases and the
    subsequent distributions. Gibson Nwafor,
    Vincent’s brother, handled the
    financialarrangements. Gibson Nwafor held the
    profits at his own apartment, converted the
    proceeds to larger bills for easier handling at
    various Chicago banks, and wire-transferred money
    out of the country on Vincent Nwafor’s behalf.
    Mr. Emenogha, who is the Nwafors’ cousin, acted
    as a courier and brought heroin to Chicago from
    Nigeria on at least three occasions.
    The operation was assisted by [the defendant in
    the instant case] Ebenezer Dikeocha, who smuggled
    heroin into the United States and distributed it
    at least once in conjunction with Vincent Nwafor.
    Additional distributors were Andy Uwazoke and Ike
    Agu. Larry Palmer, a/k/a Lawrence Ofuokwu
    (hereinafter "Palmer"), an uncharged member of
    the conspiracy, traveled to Nigeria to purchase
    heroin; he pled guilty to a drug charge in
    Maryland and agreed to cooperate with the United
    States in investigating other members of the
    conspiracy. Other couriers for the conspiracy
    were Tracy Ousley, Beverly (last name not known),
    and Darlene Sumpter, Vincent Nwafor’s girlfriend,
    who contacted the Drug Enforcement Administration
    (DEA) in 1989 and agreed to cooperate in
    arranging an undercover purchase of heroin
    between Vincent Nwafor and Chicago police officer
    Regina Joanes.
    /2 The cell phone was subscribed to by an "Andy
    Okoro" with a billing address at 1415 West Pratt,
    Chicago, Illinois. At the same time in 1990,
    Ameritech billed "Ebenezer Dikeocha" for home
    telephone service at the same address.
    /3 The record does not reflect when Dikeocha was
    able to re-enter the United States.
    /4 The judge relied on transcripts of Palmer’s
    testimony when sentencing Dikeocha in 1999
    because Palmer was unavailable to testify as he
    was out of the country in Nigeria at the time of
    Dikeocha’s trial and sentencing.
    /5 Dikeocha asserts that it was unfair for the
    district court to rely on Larry Palmer’s
    testimony because his counsel did not have the
    opportunity to cross-examine him, as Palmer was
    in Nigeria and therefore unavailable to testify
    at Dikeocha’s trial. However, the fact that
    Dikeocha did not have the opportunity to cross-
    examine Palmer is a problem of his own making for
    he had departed from the country at the time of
    the scheduled trial. Had Dikeocha not been a
    fugitive until 1997, he more than likely would
    have been tried with his co-conspirators in 1991,
    and would have had the opportunity to personally
    cross-examine Palmer at that time.