## Facts

- In 1981, Lawrence Famakinde Adedoyin (using another name) entered a nolo contendere plea in California to a felony, resulting in a judgment of conviction and sentence.
- In 1985, an immigration judge ordered Adedoyin deported; a warrant of deportation issued and he left the United States.
- Before reentering in 1994, Adedoyin obtained a Nigerian passport under a different name and used it to obtain a U.S. visa.
- On the visa application, he answered “no” to a question asking whether he had any criminal convictions, omitting the 1981 California felony conviction.
- After returning to the United States, he engaged in business activity related to establishing a television network and allegedly failed to pay various landlords, vendors, and employees; the government also alleged mail and wire fraud conduct.
- A superseding indictment charged improper entry, visa/document fraud, and multiple counts of mail and wire fraud.
- At trial, the government introduced a certified copy of the 1981 California judgment to prove Adedoyin had a felony conviction that he falsely denied on his visa application; the district court admitted it over objection.
- A jury convicted Adedoyin; the district court entered judgment and imposed sentence, and Adedoyin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a certified state judgment entered on a nolo contendere plea could be admitted to prove the existence of a prior felony “conviction” for purposes of proving falsity on a visa application and related federal charges.
2. Whether the time to bring the case to trial violated the Speedy Trial Act, given continuances granted as “ends of justice” exclusions.
3. Whether additional evidentiary, procedural, and sufficiency challenges required reversal.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the California felony judgment based on a nolo contendere plea constituted a “conviction” and was properly admitted to prove the fact of conviction.
- The court held there was no Speedy Trial Act violation because the district court made adequate “ends of justice” findings supporting excludable delays.
- The court rejected Adedoyin’s remaining claims of error.

## Legal Principles

- A prior state judgment entered after a nolo contendere plea may be treated as a “conviction” in federal criminal proceedings when, under the relevant state law, the plea carries the same legal effect as a guilty plea for entry of judgment and sentencing.
- Evidence of a prior conviction may be admitted to prove the fact of conviction (as a status or historical fact) without treating the nolo plea as an admission of guilt of the underlying offense.
- Certified copies of state court judgments are generally admissible to prove the fact of conviction when properly authenticated and within applicable evidentiary exceptions for public records/judgments.
- Under the Speedy Trial Act, delay resulting from a continuance may be excluded when the court makes on-the-record findings that the continuance serves the “ends of justice” and outweighs the interests in a speedy trial.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld Adedoyin’s convictions, ruling that the government could use a certified California judgment entered on a nolo contendere plea to prove he had a prior felony conviction he failed to disclose on a visa application, and concluding that properly supported “ends of justice” continuances prevented any Speedy Trial Act violation.


United States v. Adedoyin, 369 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004)