United States v. James Peperno, Jr.
119 F.4th 322
| 3rd Cir. | 2024Background
- James Peperno, Jr. and Robert Semenza, Jr. conspired to solicit bribes from Walter Stocki to influence Stocki’s zoning litigation with Old Forge, PA.
- Peperno first proposed the bribery scheme to Stocki in January 2019, seeking substantial up-front and recurring payments.
- Stocki contacted the FBI, who later directed and recorded interactions between Stocki and Peperno using marked cash.
- Payments totaling about $16,000 were made: $10,000 directly to Semenza, $6,000 to Peperno; bribes were tied to various promised government actions.
- Peperno was convicted by a jury on multiple bribery and fraud-related charges and sentenced to 72 months’ imprisonment, with sentencing enhancements for multiple bribes and value exceeding $15,000.
- Peperno appealed, arguing error in the denial of a jury entrapment instruction and in the sentencing enhancements applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Entrapment Instruction | Government induced Peperno into bribery scheme | Government did not induce; Peperno initiated scheme | No instruction; Peperno not entrapped |
| Multiple Bribes Enhancement | Only one bribe under guidelines | Multiple, varied payments for different actions | Multiple bribes; two-level enhancement |
| Value of Bribes Enhancement | Only direct payments to Peperno should count | All payments to both conspirators are included | Enhancement proper; $16,000 total |
| Sentencing Calculation Procedural Error | Guidelines wrongly applied | Sentencing enhancements appropriate and supported | Sentencing affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wright, 921 F.2d 42 (3d Cir. 1990) (establishing elements and standard for entrapment defense in federal prosecutions)
- United States v. Dennis, 826 F.3d 683 (3d Cir. 2016) (government's actions must overpower the defendant for inducement)
- United States v. Arshad, 239 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2001) (factors to determine if payments constitute multiple bribes)
- United States v. Whiteford, 676 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 2012) (relevant conduct includes foreseeable coconspirator acts for sentencing)