United States v. Gnahore

── United States v. Gnahore ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General 23-6327 (L) United States v. Gnahore UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, DENNY CHIN, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Nos. 23-6327 (Lead), 23-6359 (Con) SALIFOU CONDE, SEKHOU TOURE, ALSENY KEITA, ABRAHIM DUKURAY, ABOUBAKAR BAKAYOKO, ISSIAGA SYLLA,  Defendants, SYLVAIN GNALI GNAHORE, FALIKOU KONE, Defendants-Appellants. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant Michelle Anderson Barth, Law Office of Sylvain Gnali Gnahore: Michelle Anderson Barth, Burlington, VT. For Defendant-Appellant Falikou Kone, pro se, Cresson, PA. Falikou Kone: For Appellee: Kevin Grossinger, James Ligtenberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Valerie E. Caproni, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the March 17, 2023 and April 4, 2023 judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. Sylvain Gnali Gnahore appeals from a judgment of conviction following his plea of guilty to bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2 (Count Two). Falikou Kone appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in which he was convicted of (1) wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Count Two); 2 (2) bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2 (Count Three); and (3) transporting stolen vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2312 and 2 (Count Four). Gnahore’s and Kone’s respective convictions stemmed from their participation in a scheme to defraud banks using fake aliases and false checks (the “Check Fraud Scheme”), and a scheme to steal cars from rental car companies (the “Stolen Car Scheme”). In this consolidated appeal, Gnahore contends that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective by stipulating in his plea agreement to a Sentencing Guidelines calculation based on intended (rather than actual) loss. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. Meanwhile, Kone, proceeding pro se, raises a plethora of jurisdictional, evidentiary, constitutional, and sentencing challenges to his conviction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. I. Gnahore’s Counsel Was Not Constitutionally Ine