United States v. Okomba

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JACQUELINE DIANNE OKOMBA, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LAURENCE SESSUM, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 20-4077, 20-4079

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

April 28, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: December 10, 2021

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cr-00292-RJC-DSC-1; 3:18-cr-00292-RJC-DSC-2)

ON BRIEF:

Chiege Ojugo Kalu Okwara, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant

Jacqueline Dianne Okomba. Patrick Michael Megaro, HALSCOTT MEGARO, PA, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant

Laurence Sessum. R. Andrew Murray, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee and Senior Judge Floyd joined.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

DIAZ Circuit Judge

Following a joint trial, a jury convicted Laurence Sessum and Jacqueline Dianne Okomba of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and obstruction of justice. The jury also convicted Sessum of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court sentenced Sessum to 135 months in prison. Okomba received a 72-month prison sentence. They appeal, raising a host of challenges. We affirm.

I.

A.

The evidence at trial established these facts. In October 2013, Sessum and Okomba opened Direct Processing, LLC, a company that collected "out-of-statute" debts-i.e., unenforceable debts whose statutes of limitations had run.

Direct Processing bought lists of people with such debts, often engaging outside vendors to obtain debtors' contact information. The company then called the debtors using dialer services and left automated messages prompting them to resolve their debts. The messages identified a fictitious caller and warned debtors of impending legal action.

If a debtor responded to the message, they were connected to a Direct Processing employee. These employees used scripted pressure tactics that built on the automated messages, coercing debtors into paying some, all, or more than their alleged debt. And employees earned bonuses the more they collected.

Employees were also trained to inflate the purported debts and tell debtors that Direct Processing would be serving them with legal process, including judgments, wage garnishments, or liens. And they warned debtors of imminent arrest if the debts went unpaid.

But Direct Processing lacked legal authority to enforce the out-of-statute debts. So it never did. Still, the company collected over $6, 000, 000 in its first three years of operation.

Sessum and Okomba, as co-owners of Direct Processing, played key roles in its day-to-day business. Sessum bought the lists of debts. He also sent Direct Processing's automated-message scripts to the dialer services. And when debtors agreed to pay, employees emailed payment information to Sessum for processing. At times, Sessum reprimanded employees who threatened debtors with arrest. But these employees rarely faced discipline. If they were fired, the company often rehired them.

Okomba worked as an "office manager" who oversaw Direct Processing's employees. J.A. 509. She ensured that the employees were present, on time, and doing their job. Okomba worked closely with another supervisor, Shane Hough. They directed employees to use false company names in the collection calls-names that Sessum and Hough created when faced with debtor complaints.

As part of Direct Processing's operation, it formed several affiliated companies. Direct Processing and its alter egos maintained at least fifteen bank accounts, with collections deposited into six of those accounts. Sessum and Okomba controlled the primary bank accounts, including Direct Processing's own accounts that received over $4.5 million in collections. And the pair regularly directed funds from Direct Processing to the alter-ego companies. In turn, the companies used those funds for payroll, dialer services, and debt-list purchases.

B.

In August 2015, the FBI executed a search warrant at Direct Processing's office on Sardis Road in Charlotte, North Carolina. The day before, the FBI had frozen Direct Processing's brokerage account. Having noticed the account was frozen, Sessum instructed employee Cameron Leach to "clear out the computers" at the office because "a raid [was] coming." J.A. 774. Sessum and Okomba were already at the office when Leach arrived. Leach then loaded his car with phones and computers. He stored them at his house "until everything . . . cooled down." J.A. 778.

When FBI agents arrived at the office, they discovered most cubicles were missing computers. Agents did, however, find several scripts describing Direct Processing's debt-collection tactics, as well as paperwork bearing false company names. Agents spoke with Okomba and Sessum while there. When asked if she had been tipped off, Okomba noted that the brokerage account had been frozen. But when pressed about the missing computers, Okomba denied owning any. For his part, Sessum also mentioned the frozen brokerage account, but he refused to talk about the computers.

Direct Processing later opened a new office. Though associated with a different company, the FBI traced this office to Direct Processing and obtained a second search warrant. Agents again recovered scripts describing legal consequences for debtors if they failed to pay and letters to debtors on other companies' letterhead. Okomba wasn't present during this second search.

II.

A.

A grand jury indicted Sessum and Okomba for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1349 (Count 1); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count 2); conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 3); and obstruction of justice by destruction and concealment of objects and records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (Count 4).^[1]

Okomba moved to sever her trial from Sessum's, arguing a joint trial could prejudice her ability to present exculpatory testimony because it would inculpate Sessum. She also argued that evidence going to Sessum's guilt could have a "spillover effect" against her. J.A. 55. The court denied Okomba's motion because any prejudice could be remedied by less drastic measures such as limiting instructions.

On the eve of trial, Sessum and Okomba separately moved to dismiss Counts 1 through 3 of the indictment. They each argued that those charges turned on alleged conduct that violated only the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to Sessum and Okomba, their conduct amounted to a civil violation, so it couldn't support a criminal prosecution. The district court denied both motions. It found that the "existence of civil remedies" for Sessum and Okomba's alleged conduct didn't bar a prosecution for fraud. J.A. 378.

B.

The case proceeded to a jury trial. The government called victims of Direct Processing's collection scheme and former employees. FBI agents testified about the investigation and provided a forensic analysis of bank accounts affiliated with the company. The government also submitted documentary evidence, including emails about purchasing out-of-statute debts, and Direct Processing's debt-collection scripts.

At the close of the government's case, Sessum and Okomba each moved for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. The district court denied both motions. Neither defendant presented evidence.

During deliberations, the jury asked two questions: (1) "Are debit/credit transactions processed by payment company intermediaries considered wire transactions?"; and (2) "Are email communications considered wire communications?" J.A. 1025. The court found that the first question was factual and for the jury to answer. But over defendants' objections, the court answered the second question in the affirmative.

The jury then found Okomba guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and obstruction of justice but acquitted her on substantive wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. It convicted Sessum on all four counts.

Following the verdict, Sessum and Okomba renewed their Rule 29 motions and moved for new trials. Okomba challenged the district court's answer to the jury's question about email communications on her wire-fraud-conspiracy conviction, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her obstruction conviction. She also claimed the latter had been tainted by spillover evidence from Sessum's wrongdoing. Sessum likewise contested the district court's response to the jury's second question and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions, arguing he only violated civil statutes.

The district court denied both motions.^[2]

C.

1.

Sessum's presentence investigation report calculated a Guidelines sentence of 210 to 262 months' imprisonment, based on a total offense level of 36 and a criminal-history category of II. Sessum's money-laundering-conspiracy conviction drove his Guidelines calculation. The report increased this offense's level by 18 based on a loss amount of at least $3.5 million, among other enhancements.

Sessum objected to the report's calculation. He argued that the evidence supported a loss amount of no more than $60, 000 particularly since he tried to have "Direct Processing comply with fair debt collection practices." J.A. 1824. ...