United States v. Paul Solofa
409 U.S. App. D.C. 58
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- FBI investigated a kickback scheme defrauding DOE of American Samoa; Mayer paid Nauer kickbacks and Solofa, as DOE CFO, knew of it and took hush money.
- Mayer cooperated with the FBI after counsel advised; Mayer secretly recorded conversations with Solofa and Nauer to elicit information.
- In the first recording, Solofa advised Mayer to deny dealings and claim no traces because transactions were cash.
- In the second recording, Solofa instructed Mayer to comply with a fake subpoena, produce everything, but later urged destroying copies of documents.
- A grand jury indicted Solofa for witness tampering and obstruction of justice based on the recorded conversations.
- At sentencing, the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(c)(1) to enhance for obstructing an investigation, yielding a 41–51 month range per offense; final sentence was 35 months concurrent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not raising entrapment | Solofa | United States | No prejudice; entrapment defense lacking |
| Entrapment viability | Solofa | United States | No entrapment; government deception insufficient inducement |
| Application of 2J1.2(c)(1) to attempts | Solofa | United States | Plain error not established; c(1) covers attempts; sentence affirmed |
| Sentence within guidelines | Solofa | United States | District court properly applied enhancement; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) (elements of entrapment—inducement and lack of predisposition)
- Russell v. United States, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (government deception must originate the crime; not mere deceit)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (informant manipulation can still permit prosecution)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (elements of entrapment; government inducement plus predisposition)
- United States v. Burkley, 591 F.2d 903 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (fraudulent misrepresentations may not constitute inducement)
- United States v. Gallimore, 491 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2007) (c(1) covers attempts)
- United States v. Giovanelli, 464 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2006) (c(1) covers attempts)
- United States v. Brenson, 104 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 1997) (c(1) coverage of offenses involving obstruction)
- United States v. Aragon, 983 F.2d 1306 (4th Cir. 1993) (consideration of attempt in guidelines)
- United States v. Flemmi, 402 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2005) (c(1) application to attempts noted)
- United States v. Roche, 321 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2003) (c(1) and attempt considerations)
- United States v. Andrews, 532 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (plural circuit view on plain error and c(1) for attempts)
- United States v. Sullivan, 451 F.3d 884 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (plain error review; circuit split context)
- United States v. Bell, 708 F.3d 223 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (ineffectiveness review considering prejudice)