Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TOOCHUKWU MICHAEL OKORIE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-22 Docket: 2:19-cr-00626-MHH-NAD-3 The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Toochukwu Michael Okorie’s conviction and sentence for conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1957. The court rejected Okorie’s arguments regarding improper venue, material variance between the indictment and trial evidence, the admission of prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the deliberate ignorance jury instruction, the reasonableness of his sentence, and the immediate payment of restitution. Regarding venue, the court applied de novo review and held that venue was proper in the Northern District of Alabama because the indictment contained facially sufficient allegations that acts in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred there; under *United States v. Snipes*, whether venue is proper is a question of fact for the jury when the indictment is facially valid, and Okorie’s argument regarding prior co-conspirator acts was foreclosed by binding precedent. On the material variance claim, reviewed for plain error, the court found no reversible error because sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of a single conspiracy with a common goal to launder proceeds, distinguishing the case from a “rimless wheel” conspiracy where spokes lack connection. Concerning Rule 404(b) evidence, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard and determined that Okorie’s prior 2011 wire fraud convictions were highly probative of his intent, which he contested by pleading not guilty, and that any prejudice was mitigated by a limiting instruction. The court reviewed the deliberate ignorance instruction de novo, concluding it was appropriate because the evidence could support an inference that Okorie, a certified fraud examiner, deliberately avoided learning the illicit nature of funds wired to his accounts. In addressing sentencing, the court applied an abuse of discretion standard for both procedural and substantive reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court held the sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district court calculated the correct advisory guidelines range (70–87 months) before varying upward to 108 months based on Okorie’s criminal history, the nature of the offense, and the need for deterrence. The sentence was substantively reasonable as it was below the statutory maximum and justified by the district court’s consideration of specific factors; claims of unwarranted disparity with co-conspirators were rejected because those defendants were not similarly situated due to their cooperation and lack of criminal history. Finally, regarding restitution, the court found no plain error in ordering immediate payment, noting that Okorie failed to object to the Presentence Investigation Report’s finding of his financial ability to pay at sentencing. The practical consequence is that Okorie’s conviction and 108-month prison sentence, followed by three years of supervised release and an order to pay $30,713 in restitution, remain in full force and effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.