United States v. Gary Solomon, 892 F.3d 273

Byrd-Bennett, as CPS CEO, steered two sole-source contracts to SUPES (one $2.54M, one $20.5M) while retaining a financial arrangement with SUPES begun before her CPS tenure.
Solomon (SUPES CEO) and Vranas (SUPES president) agreed to fund trusts and other payments for Byrd‑Bennett in exchange for her awarding contracts to SUPES; all three were indicted and pleaded guilty to honest‑services wire fraud.
At sentencing, the parties disputed whether the bribery scheme covered only the first contract or also the later $20.5M contract; inclusion of the larger contract increased Solomon’s guidelines offense level by four levels.
The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the scheme covered the $20.5M contract (relying on emails, Byrd‑Bennett’s procurement efforts, and deleted emails), applied guideline enhancements and reductions, and set Solomon’s sentence at 84 months.
Byrd‑Bennett received a below‑guidelines sentence of 54 months after substantial cooperation; the government moved for a larger downward departure for her than for Solomon based on her significant assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $20.5M contract was part of the bribery agreement and thus includable in benefits calculation	Solomon: agreement covered only the first contract; second contract unrelated so its value should not be used	Government: scheme was ongoing; the $20.5M contract fell within the stream of benefits tied to the agreement	Court: affirmed inclusion — district court’s factual finding that the scheme encompassed the $20.5M contract was not clearly erroneous
Whether Solomon’s higher sentence relative to Byrd‑Bennett was substantively unreasonable due to disparity	Solomon: sentences are unwarrantedly disparate because both pled to same offense, were equal partners, and have similar records; Byrd‑Bennett as public official is more culpable	Government: Byrd‑Bennett provided substantial cooperation (leading to 5K1.1 motion) and did not immediately receive proceeds; cooperation justifies disparity	Court: affirmed — sentencing disparity reasonable given Byrd‑Bennett’s substantial assistance and other mitigating differences

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (honest‑services fraud requires an agreement to pay a bribe or kickback)
United States v. Coscia, 866 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2017) (appellate review of district court factual findings for clear error)
United States v. Holton, 873 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2017) (preponderance standard for including conduct in sentencing calculations)
Ryan v. United States, 688 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012) (bribery schemes may involve a continuing stream of benefits)
United States v. Wright, 665 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 2012) (bribery theory does not require one‑to‑one linkage of quid and quo)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court may consider co‑defendant sentences when justifying variance)
United States v. Orlando, 819 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2016) (cooperation can justify disparate sentences)
United States v. Boscarino, 437 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (less culpable defendant may receive lighter sentence in return for cooperation)