USA v. Enyinna Onyewu

DC CircuitAug 21, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 52/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The 12th Circuit affirmed the robbery-related convictions and sentences of Onyewu, Sumo, and Flumo arising from a string of 2018 Hobbs Act robberies in the D.C. metro area. Rejecting numerous evidentiary, Fourth Amendment, ineffective-assistance, and statutory challenges, the panel also held that Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Proper standard of appellate review (de novo vs. clear-error) for a district court’s denial of a Franks v. Delaware evidentiary hearing challenging the veracity of a search-warrant affidavit.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 1Circuit 3Circuit 5Circuit 9

Denial of a Franks hearing reviewed de novo

Circuit 2Circuit 4Circuit 6Circuit 7Circuit 8Circuit 10Circuit 11

Denial of a Franks hearing reviewed for clear error / abuse of discretion

DC Circuit(this circuit)

Declines to decide; outcome same under either standard

Conflict Summary

Several circuits hold that the denial of a Franks hearing is reviewed de novo because it turns on a predominantly legal question, while other circuits apply clear-error review (or abuse-of-discretion incorporating clear-error for factual findings) on the ground that the district court is better positioned to assess credibility and materiality. The 12th Circuit acknowledged the split but ruled that the appellants would lose under either standard and therefore declined to choose between the two approaches.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Enyinna Onyewu (consolidated with Emmanuel Sumo and Quaysa Flumo)
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Jerry R. Smith Jr.; Robin M. Earnest; Steven M. Klepper (court-appointed)
Appellee:Thomas D. Hill, Assistant U.S. Attorney; with Jeanine Ferris Pirro (U.S. Attorney), Chrisellen R. Kolb and Daniel J. Lenerz (Assistant U.S. Attorneys)