U.S. v. Lee, 17-3868
| Decision Date | 18 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-3868,17-3868 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tamela M. LEE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Defendant Tamela M. Lee ("Defendant" or "Lee") appeals from the district court judgment convicting her on six counts after a plea of not guilty and sentencing her to a total term of sixty months' imprisonment. Counts One through Four concerned conspiracy to commit honest services mail and wire fraud, honest services mail fraud, Hobbs Act conspiracy, and Hobbs Act extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, 1349, and 1951. Counts Five and Six concerned obstruction of justice and false statements to law enforcement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001. On appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of her indictment on Counts One through Four in light of the Supreme Court's decision in McDonnell v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2355, 195 L.Ed.2d 639 (2016), as well as the sufficiency of the evidence for all of her convictions. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
In 2013, Defendant Tamela Lee was sworn in as a member of the Summit County Council to represent District 5 in Akron, Ohio. She signed an oath of office stating that she would "faithfully, honestly, and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on" a member of the Council. (Supplemental Appendix at 90.) This case concerns Defendant's relationship with Omar Abdelqader ("Abdelqader"), who owned a business in District 5 but did not reside there. The FBI began investigating the relationship between Defendant in her position as Summit County Councilperson and Abdelqader in October 2013 following complaints that Abdelqader "was insisting on monthly cash payments from other local businesses" that he would give to Defendant in exchange for political favors. (R. 126, Transcript, PageID # 849–50.) Defendant knew Abdelqader through her husband, and Abdelqader helped support Defendant when her husband unexpectedly left the country for long stretches of time. Defendant's husband's departure left her in serious financial difficulties, and Abdelqader supported her by allowing her to take items from his convenience store, paying for services for her, and giving her money. The FBI obtained wiretaps on both Defendant's and Abdelqader's cellular phones, which allowed the FBI to monitor many conversations and text messages between Defendant and Abdelqader.1
On June 1, 2014, Abdelqader's nephews, Sharif Hamed ("Hamed") and Samir Abdelqader ("Samir"), were arrested for felonious assault after an altercation with an unidentified man in Akron. Abdelqader turned to Defendant for help with the matter on June 8, 2014. He first asked her to attend a hearing for Samir, and when she told him she could not attend, she offered to call or email the judge instead. In the same conversation, Defendant and Abdelqader discussed Defendant's financial problems, and Abdelqader promised her that they would "work it out." (R. 126, Transcript, PageID # 911.) On June 9, 2014, Defendant placed calls to the Summit County Juvenile Court bailiff and the judicial assistant for the Summit County Juvenile Court judge. In a conversation with his brother (Samir's father) later that day, Abdelqader told his brother that he had discussed the case with Defendant, stating that he had given Defendant two hundred dollars and that he had promised to give her an additional three hundred dollars if she "finish[ed] up this matter for [Abdelqader]." (Id . at PageID # 924–26.) Defendant deposited two hundred dollars in her bank account on June 10, 2014.
Two days later, on June 12, 2014, Abdelqader texted Defendant. He reminded her of his nephew's name and stated (Id . at PageID # 938.) That afternoon, Defendant placed several calls to the Akron Municipal Court judge who was handling the case and his staff. Those calls lasted 51 seconds and 5 minutes and 44 seconds, respectively.2 The next day, Defendant and Abdelqader discussed the case again. Abdelqader told Defendant "I really need your help in these two cases ... with my two nephews." (Id . at PageID # 946.) When Abdelqader expressed outrage at the charges, Defendant tried to describe to him why his nephews were culpable "from a legal position," explaining "you have to understand, that by the law of the State of Ohio and the United States of American [sic], when you do that—it's wrong!" (Id . at PageID # 947–49.) Defendant suggested that Abdelqader's nephew could try to press charges against the other man in the altercation. Abdelqader told Defendant "the only thing I need from you is, is try to, try to explain to these people what exactly happened." (Id . at PageID # 949.) The conversation shifted to Defendant's money problems, and Abdelqader told Defendant to come by his convenience store so he could give her money. Finally, Defendant promised Abdelqader right before they hung up that she would speak with her friend at the prosecutor's office.
On June 14, 2014, Defendant spoke with Abdelqader regarding her calls to the judge and stated that she was "broke." (Id . at PageID # 957.) Abdelqader told Defendant to send her daughter to pick up fifty dollars from his store. They also discussed his nephews' case: Defendant told Abdelqader that she had missed calls from the judge and the bailiff, and he asked her to "try to get a hold of them and let them know what's going on." (Id . at PageID # 960.)
Shortly before Hamed's hearing on June 17, 2014, Defendant went to the court and spoke with Judge Larson, the judge in the case. Defendant said that she was there as a character witness, incorrectly claiming that Samir was her relative. Defendant then went to discuss the issue with the prosecutor in the case, Marisa Pappas ("Pappas"). Defendant told Pappas that Hamed was her nephew, she wanted to be a character witness for him, and she was on the County Council.
On July 9, 2014, Defendant texted Gertrude Wilms ("Wilms"), the chief city prosecutor for the city of Akron, whom she knew through their mutual involvement in Akron politics. Wilms called Defendant back on July 10, 2014, and Defendant began talking about Abdelqader's nephews' case. Wilms told Defendant "I don't know what we're talking about," and Defendant responded:
Okay, uh, the boy on Arlington the 17 year old who hit the guy with the car, anyway. Like my favorite, favorite, favorite people. I know Samir, I don't know the other boy. Samir works right here right around the corner from me. But anyway, I had asked them, why did anybody, you know the other guy was 28 and they were 17. I said, "Why wasn't the 28-year-old charged?" And anyway they said they had come down, the parents came down to um press charges against the 28-year-old. And I just told them, I said, "Well look I'll call Gert, and I'll just tell her what I know." And I'm not trying to influence you, you can't say I'm trying to influence you. I'm trying to make you think. That's all I'm trying to do; just trying to make you think.
(R. 132, Transcript, PageID # 1378.) The conversation continued:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hills
...in return for "official acts" as is required under McDonnell . We are not persuaded.1. Public Official. Relying on United States v. Lee , 919 F.3d 340, 343 (6th Cir. 2019), defendants assert that only elected officials are "public officials" for purposes of Hobbs Act bribery. To be sure, th......
-
Dimora v. United States
...or controversy" pending before a public official.7 See 18 U.S.C. § 201. That definition contains a "two-part test." United States v. Lee , 919 F.3d 340, 350 (6th Cir. 2019). First, an official act must involve an official issue—a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy." I......
-
United States v. Hills
...in return for "official acts" as is required under McDonnell. We are not persuaded. 1. Public Official. Relying on United States v. Lee, 919 F.3d 340, 343 (6th Cir. 2019), defendants assert that only elected officials are "public officials" for purposes of Hobbs Act bribery. To be sure, the......
-
United States v. Reichberg
...(licenses and permits); United States v. Fattah , 914 F.3d 112, 156 (3d Cir. 2019) (hiring government employee); United States v. Lee , 919 F.3d 340, 357 (6th Cir. 2019) (decision about whether to bring charges), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 895, 205 L.Ed.2d 473 (2020).71 App. a......