RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 19a0045p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TAMELA M. LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 17-3868

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

No. 1:15-cr-00445-1—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.

Argued: October 18, 2018

Decided and Filed: March 18, 2019

Before: KEITH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jerome A. Madden, MADDEN LAW PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. 

Elliot D. Morrison, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. 

ON BRIEF: Jerome A. Madden, Virginia W. Hoptman, MADDEN LAW PLLC, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellant. Elliot D. Morrison, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which KEITH and NALBANDIAN, JJ., 

joined. NALBANDIAN, J. (pp. 27–29), delivered a separate concurring opinion.

>
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. 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, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (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.

BACKGROUND

Factual History

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 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 3

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

A. Defendant’s Intervention in Assault Case

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 “Please don’t forget to call. We have court today at 2.” (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, 

 

1The FBI obtained permission to wiretap Abdelqader’s phone on June 4, 2014, and it obtained permission 

to wiretap Defendant’s phone on June 21, 2014.

2The FBI had not yet begun wiretapping Defendant’s phone when these conversations occurred, so the 

content of these conversations is unknown. 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 4

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 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 5

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:

LEE: But, the history with what happened with them and that 28 year old guy 

who started the fight. I’ve always known that story. You know, from the boy 

who works at Lorenzo’s, you know I know everybody that works at everybody’s 

store. And that he’s a problem. And that he’s the one who went into the, he saw 

their car, and went into the barbershop and started the fight. So this whole thing 

started because of this 28 year old bully, going in and harassing the 17 and 18 

year old boys. And Samir is the nicest, sweetest.

WILMS: Well what happened that Samir got charged?

LEE: Well because the 17 year old, when the police started coming, everyone 

started running, and the 17 year old was in the car and he was trying to get around 

the curb to run away, well he actually hit the 28 year old. (UI).

WILMS: With the car?

LEE: Yeah.

WILMS: Okay.

LEE: So, all of their, their case is the 17 year old and the 18 year old, you know, 

both of their cases, you know, have gone forward because you know when it 

happened, you know I told them I said, “Look you hit somebody with a car.”

WILMS: Yeah.

LEE: There, there’s no getting around that, I mean that’s just stupid. But Samir 

he says he “Wasn’t trying to hit him,” he “Was trying to get away.”

WILMS: Okay. Is his case still pending?

LEE: Uh huh.

WILMS: Who is the attorney.

LEE: I don’t know who they went and got as their attorney?

WILMS: Okay. So he told his attorney all this and everything. Is this the case 

that's pending in Larsen’s Court?

LEE: Yeah.

WILMS: Okay.

LEE: But they came, the parents came down to press charges against the 28 year 

old.

WILMS: Whose parents?
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 6

LEE: Both of them, Samir and his cousin, they both came down about a week 

ago and they were told that it’s up to the Prosecutor, whether or not, you know to 

press charges against the 28 year old.

WILMS: Alright, I’m going to have to look at this stuff and call you back 

because none of this story is making sense.

LEE: Is what?

WILMS: I’ll pull some police reports and I’ll call you back.

LEE: Okay honey and then maybe I’ll make more sense when you know what 

I’m talking about.

WILMS: Yeah, I don’t know exactly what happened so and we usually don’t sign 

charges when the police have made a decision on scene, who they think is the 

primary aggressor, we don’t second guess that, so it's not likely to get charges but 

I'll look into it.

LEE: Okay. Because there were actually two altercations. Because he came into 

the barbershop and started the fight and then the barbershop owner told them, you 

know, to get off their property or whatever. (OV) What the witnesses saw, what 

the witnesses saw was the second, um, altercation—

WILMS: Uh huh.

LEE: —in the street. The 28 year old started it and then if you look at like the 

text message history and all the other stuff, well the 28 year old has been 

harassing these boys for months.

WILMS: Okay, let me take a look at it Tamela and I’ll call you back.

LEE: Oh, okay thanks Gert.

WILMS: Uh huh. Hmm. Bye.

LEE: Bye bye.

(Id. at PageID # 1379–81.) There was no prohibition on members of the public calling Wilms to 

discuss a case. After the call, Wilms checked the case file and discussed it with the prosecutor 

assigned to the case, ultimately concluding that no charges should be filed against the 

unidentified man. Wilms called Defendant back and left her a voicemail to that effect. Wilms 

testified that she believed if she did not call Defendant back, Defendant might “go over [Wilms’] 

head and contact [her] supervisor,” the law director. (Id. at PageID # 1388.)

B. Defendant’s Letter to the IRS

Abdelqader’s friend Malek Albanna (“Albanna”) had a son, George Albanna (“George”), 

who was under investigation by the IRS. Unbeknownst to Abdelqader and Defendant, Albanna 

was assisting the FBI in its investigation of Abdelqader and Defendant. Albanna recorded a 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 7

conversation between himself and Abdelqader in May of 2014. In that conversation, Albanna 

and Abdelqader discussed George’s case. Albanna told Abdelqader that a church had written a 

character letter supporting George. He then asked Abdelqader, “Didn’t you once tell me . . . that 

you’d arrange for me a document, or a letter from her . . . that girl you got . . . she’d be testifying 

that George is upstanding?” (R. 126, Transcript, PageID # 875.) Abdelqader replied, “I can . . . 

Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! I can get her . . . to put it in a document . . . . I’ll get her to make you a 

document . . . with a governmental stamp, also.” (Id.) When Albanna stated “No matter what it 

costs—I’ll pay!”, Abdelqader responded “whatever it does cost, I’ll pay—because George is my 

son, man!” (Id. at PageID # 876–77.) Abdelqader reiterated later in the conversation, “I’ll get 

her to prepare a document for you, and it would [be] stamped with the stamp of the government.” 

(Id. at PageID # 877.)

On June 20, 2014, Albanna and Abdelqader discussed George’s case again. Albanna 

asked, “What happened with the woman in regards to George?” (Id. at PageID # 972.) 

Abdelqader responded, “I swear . . . I can go anytime to get the paper from the woman. She told 

me: ‘Whenever you ready . . . whenever you need it . . . Anytime you need it—the paper is 

available.’” (Id. at PageID # 972–73.) Abdelqader continued, “Do you understand me? She 

came . . . to the court with my nephew . . . I mean she’d do whatever . . . you know what I mean? 

. . . I just tell her whatever I want to do. But she said ‘Whenever you need it’ . . . She tells me, 

‘I will bring it to you on the same day.’” (Id. at PageID # 973.) When Abdelqader mentioned 

the fact that Defendant had come to his nephews’ trial, Abdelqader stated that “her presence did 

change the entire situation, my man.” (Id. at PageID # 976.)

On July 26, 2014, Abdelqader and Defendant discussed the letter. Portions of that 

conversation are included:

LEE: I didn’t get that letter done, or come up there, so,

ABDELQADER: Mmm.

LEE: And he didn’t send me the letter, he just sent me a d--n blank letterhead, so,

ABDELQADER: Mmm.

LEE: I have to re-type it.

ABDELQADER: Uh huh.
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 8

LEE: And, it’s been so long, Omar, I don’t even remember. You have to tell me 

again, what it is that you need?

ABDELQADER: Uh, just saying that you know this guy and you know his 

family, and he’s a good, you know, good person, and, you know, your knowledge 

of them is, you know, they’re good people, and, you know, something like that. 

Something just to show that you,

LEE: Okay.

ABDELQADER: His behaviors and stuff like that, you know?

. . . 

LEE: Okay, now who does this need to go to?

ABDELQADER: Huh? What is it? Who does it need to go to?

LEE: Yeah.

ABDELQADER: Uh, to those, to those - he has an issue with the IRS, so, to the 

people at, you know, from the IRS, I guess.

. . . 

LEE: What’s his name?

ABDELQADER: George Albanna.

LEE: George?

ABDELQADER: Albanna. Let me, let me, let me send you his name, who it’s 

supposed to go to.

. . . 

ABDELQADER: And this is going to a supervisor, Yory, um, I’m gonna have to, 

I’m gonna have to send you a text with that. I can’t even -

LEE: Alright.

ABDELQADER: I’ll send you that’s who it’s going to. But, just something 

about him and you know, you know the Albanna family and they are, you know 

good people, something like that. Alright, let me send you a text for where it’s 

going to, but just bring me a copy to the store and if you want me, I’ll send it or, if 

you guys are gonna send it, either way, but I would like to have a copy of it and 

give it to the parents, alright? Hello?

LEE: I, I’m typing.

ABDELQADER: Okay. I have to write this down on a piece of paper and send it. 

I’m gonna send you a text in a few. Where’s this going to. You need, you need 

where this is going to, or - but it has, it has the name of the guy, too.

LEE: Yeah.

ABDELQADER: Supervisor Yory.
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 9

(R. 127, Transcript, PageID # 1089–92.) Later that afternoon, Defendant and Abdelqader spoke 

on the phone again. Defendant asked Abdelqader to come by her house and pick up the letter. 

Defendant told Abdelqader that she was hungry and out of cigarettes, and Abdelqader offered to 

bring her cigarettes and food. Abdelqader later told Albanna, “whatever I say she will do,” 

referring to Defendant. (Id. at PageID # 1109.) On July 30, 2014, Abdelqader asked Defendant 

to mail the letter. In the same conversation, Abdelqader told Defendant he had $500 to give her, 

including $200 from Albanna. On July 31, 2014, Abdelqader told Albanna, “I swear she is 

getting from me 200 to 300 a week. Cigarettes, chips, candy, and this and that; don’t charge her.” 

(Id. at PageID # 1141–42.)

In the letter, which Defendant wrote on Summit County Council letterhead, Defendant 

stated that she had “known George and his family for 10 years.” (Defendant Br. at 27.) She 

claimed that she had “had numerous opportunities to work with and engage the family in the 

community on various issues related to the conduction of business.” (Id.) Defendant also 

claimed that George’s “family is often my eyes and ears to ensure that our residents and 

consumers are protected and treated fairly and I value their contribution.” (Id.) In concluding, 

Defendant stated “I am not privy to the facts in this case but I want to state with surety that 

whatever has prompted this is a sort of aberration and not business as usual for this family. 

George is young and possibly naïve but I am certain that his father and family will be diligent in 

future oversight.” (Id.) She closed the letter by stating, “I ask that you consider this letter and 

my confidence in the credibility of the family as you resolve the case.” (Id.)

C. FBI Investigation

Defendant began to suspect that Albanna was recording her on August 28, 2014. On 

August 29, 2014, FBI officers searching Defendant’s trash discovered that she had thrown away 

the letter she wrote to the IRS on behalf of Albanna’s son George. FBI agents then interviewed 

Defendant at her home on September 9, 2014. At trial, one of the FBI agents testified that 

Defendant answered several of his questions untruthfully during that interview. Defendant told 

the FBI agent, inter alia, that she “disclosed on her campaign finance report all contributions that 

were made to her;” that Abdelqader distributed invitations to Defendant’s fundraisers when he 

collected donations for her; that she did not call Judge Larson; and that she had never spoken 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 10

with the prosecution regarding Abdelqader’s nephews’ case. (R. 132, Transcript, PageID # 

1430–32.) The government presented evidence at the trial indicating that these statements were 

all untrue. Defendant also told the FBI agent that “anything that she received from Omar 

Abdelqader she would pay back after she got her paycheck and she’d pay him back on Fridays. 

And she also said if [the FBI] were to look at her Huntington Bank accounts [the FBI] would be 

able to confirm that.” (Id. at PageID # 1434.) But when the FBI reviewed her bank records, they 

only showed two transactions where Defendant transferred a total of $46 from her bank accounts 

to Abdelqader’s. 

After the agents left, Defendant and Abdelqader spoke on the phone. Defendant and 

Abdelqader had the following conversation:

LEE: The FBI just left my house.

ABDELQADER: Uh huh. About what?

LEE: Every letter I’ve ever done for you and your family.

ABDELQADER: Yeah. They are, they was at my house too.

LEE: You talk to them?

ABDELQADER: Yeah. I talk to them. They ask me, you know, they ask me I 

said, you know, I know your husband. Me and your husband are good friends. 

And uh, they ask me if uh, there was any money was tra- you know, exchanged or 

I never give you s--t anyway. I never give you any do- any money anyway. So 

what’s the problem.

LEE: I told them, I said, if I need money and he knows I have a problem and 

he’ll loan me money. But it’s a loan. I have to pay that money back.

ABDELQADER: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, this, this, this -Exactly. There was 

nothing given for free, never anything (background: And you never did s--t for 

us). 

. . . 

ABDELQADER: Mrs. Tammy. We didn’t do anything wrong.

LEE: No.

ABDELQADER: It was never, it was anything that was wrong that we have 

done. I never give you any money for free. I never, you never came in, you know 

none of that s--t so what do we have to worry for. We didn’t do nothing wrong. 

What did we do wrong?

LEE: No, I told them I said
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 11

ABDELQADER: Every time you come to the store and got stuff you paid for it. 

So, what’s the problem. Because you a politician you cannot come to the store 

and lie.

LEE: I told them I said my relationship with him is because of a friend not 

because of my position on county council.

ABDELQADER: Yeah, this is exactly, this is exactly what it is Mrs. Tammy we 

didn’t do nothing wrong. I mean they came in and tried.

(R. 127, Transcript, PageID #1179–80.)

Procedural History

On December 8, 2015, the government filed an indictment against Defendant. Counts 

One through Four of the indictment charged Defendant with conspiracy to commit honest 

services mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1349; honest 

services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346; Hobbs Act conspiracy, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and Hobbs Act extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. 

Counts Five and Six of the indictment charged Defendant with obstruction of justice, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2); and making a false statement to law enforcement officers, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

Defendant moved to dismiss Counts One through Four of the indictment after the 

Supreme Court decided McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2355. Defendant argued that, post-McDonnell, 

the indictment did not allege sufficient facts to establish a violation of law on Counts One 

through Four. The district court denied the motion.

Lee pled not guilty and proceeded to trial in February of 2017. At the close of trial, 

Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. Defendant argued that 

the government had failed to prove evidence of a conspiracy, a quid pro quo relationship 

between Defendant and Abdelqader, or obstruction of justice or false statements. Defendant also 

argued that the government had not provided evidence sufficient to satisfy the Supreme Court’s 

standard for official acts as described in McDonnell, stating, “[t]he kinds of contacts that she’s 

making with these people are the sorts of routine constituent services that the Supreme Court has 

said are not a violation of the statutes under which she’s indicted.” (R. 132, Transcript, PageID 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 12

#1469.) The district court denied the motion. The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. 

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Indictment

Standard of Review

This court reviews the sufficiency of an indictment de novo. United States v. Davis, 

306 F.3d 398, 411 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Analysis

Defendant argues that Counts One through Four of her indictment should be vacated 

because they do not adequately lay out the elements of her alleged crimes. The Supreme Court 

described the standard for testing the sufficiency of an indictment in Hamling v. United States, 

418 U.S. 87, 117–18 (1974):

[A]n indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense 

charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must 

defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of 

future prosecutions for the same offense. It is generally sufficient that an 

indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as those 

words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or 

ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended 

to be punished. Undoubtedly the language of the statute may be used in the 

general description of an offence, but it must be accompanied with such a 

statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific 

offence, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted); accord United States v. McAuliffe, 490 F.3d 526, 

531 (6th Cir. 2007). Further, “[t]he indictment must be read as a whole, accepting the factual 

allegations as true, and construing those allegations in a practical sense with all the necessary 

implications. An indictment is to be construed liberally in favor of its sufficiency.” McAuliffe, 

490 F.3d at 531.

An indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential 

facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). Counts One through Four of 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 13

the indictment against Defendant charged her with committing honest services fraud and Hobbs 

Act extortion, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1951. Those charges require that the 

official acted with intent to deprive the public of honest services and that the official acted 

“under color of official right.” Id. A conviction under these statutes requires either an “official 

act” in furtherance of the corrupt relationship or an agreement to perform an official act. 

McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2367. An official act is “any decision or action on any question, 

matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may 

by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such 

official’s place of trust or profit.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3)).

A. “Official Act” as Defined in McDonnell

Defendant argues that the indictment against her should have been dismissed because it 

failed to adequately set forth official acts that she committed as part of the allegedly corrupt 

arrangement, as explicated by the Supreme Court in McDonnell. In McDonnell, the Court 

grappled with the question of what constitutes an “official act” for purposes of honest services 

fraud and Hobbs Act extortion. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2367–75. In that case, the Governor of 

Virginia had received over $175,000 in gifts and loans from a Virginia businessman, Jonnie 

Williams (“Williams”), who hoped the Governor would facilitate state-sponsored scientific 

studies of a nutritional supplement Williams planned to sell. Id. at 2364. The allegedly corrupt 

acts the Governor took in return for the gifts included introducing Williams to Virginia’s 

Secretary of Health and Human Resources (the “Secretary”), hosting Williams at a lunch event 

with Virginia research scientists and discussing the nutritional supplement with them, passing 

from Williams to the Secretary a letter containing a proposed research protocol for studies on the 

nutrition supplement, and promoting the supplement at a meeting between the Governor and 

state officials concerning Virginia’s health plan for state employees. Id. at 2362–64. 

The Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Circuit had applied an incorrect standard 

to determine whether the Governor’s actions constituted “official acts.” Id. at 2375. The Fourth 

Circuit had upheld the district court’s jury instruction that “official act” included “‘acts that a 

public official customarily performs,’ including acts ‘in furtherance of longer-term goals’ or ‘in a 

series of steps to exercise influence or achieve an end.’” Id. at 2366 (quoting United States v. 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 14

McDonnell, 792 F.3d 478, 505–06 (4th Cir. 2015)). Instead, the Supreme Court in McDonnell

identified a two-part test for an official act: “[f]irst, the Government must identify a question, 

matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy that may at any time be pending or may by law be 

brought before a public official. Second, the Government must prove that the public official 

made a decision or took an action on that question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or 

controversy, or agreed to do so.” McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2368 (internal quotation omitted). 

The Court determined that “[s]etting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an 

event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit [the] definition of official act.” Id. at 

2372 (internal quotation omitted). In contrast, “a decision or action to initiate a research study—

or a decision or action on a qualifying step, such as narrowing down the list of potential research 

topics—would qualify as an ‘official act.’” Id. at 2370. 

Importantly, a public official did not actually have to perform an official act herself. An 

official could be culpable under the standard described in McDonnell if the official “use[d] his 

official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or if the official 

“use[d] his official position to provide advice to another official, knowing or intending that such 

advice [] form the basis for an ‘official act’ by another official.” Id. (emphasis in original). And 

the official could be convicted without actually taking those actions—without actually exerting 

pressure or providing advice to another official. Id. If a jury found the evidence to be sufficient 

to demonstrate that the defendant agreed to take an official act in exchange for the gifts, such a 

determination would be sufficient to support a guilty verdict. Id. The Supreme Court explained:

Under this Court’s precedents, a public official is not required to actually make a 

decision or take an action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or 

controversy”; it is enough that the official agree to do so. The agreement need not 

be explicit, and the public official need not specify the means that he will use to 

perform his end of the bargain. Nor must the public official in fact intend to 

perform the “official act,” so long as he agrees to do so. A jury could, for 

example, conclude that an agreement was reached if the evidence shows that the 

public official received a thing of value knowing that it was given with the 

expectation that the official would perform an “official act” in return. It is up to 

the jury, under the facts of the case, to determine whether the public official 

agreed to perform an “official act” at the time of the alleged quid pro quo. The 

jury may consider a broad range of pertinent evidence, including the nature of the 

transaction, to answer that question. . . .
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 15

Of course, this is not to say that setting up a meeting, hosting an event, or making 

a phone call is always an innocent act, or is irrelevant, in cases like this one. If an 

official sets up a meeting, hosts an event, or makes a phone call on a question or 

matter that is or could be pending before another official, that could serve as 

evidence of an agreement to take an official act. A jury could conclude, for 

example, that the official was attempting to pressure or advise another official on 

a pending matter. And if the official agreed to exert that pressure or give that 

advice in exchange for a thing of value, that would be illegal . . . .

In sum, an “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, 

proceeding or controversy.” The “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or 

controversy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is 

similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or 

a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that 

is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as

an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that 

“question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” or agree to do so. That 

decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on 

another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official, knowing 

or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another 

official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event 

(or agreeing to do so) — without more — does not fit that definition of “official 

act.”

Id. at 2370–72 (internal citation omitted). Because the district court’s jury instructions did not 

ensure that the jury reached its decision to convict within those parameters, the Supreme Court in 

McDonnell vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 

2375. 

B. Defendant’s Indictment

Defendant argues that the indictment against her should have been dismissed because it 

did not include facts “to support the ‘more’ required by McDonnell.” (Defendant Br. at 50.) 

According to Defendant, McDonnell should be read to create an unspoken new standard for 

determining when an official has “provide[d] advice” or “exert[ed] pressure” on another official 

to take an official act. (Id. at 44–47.) Defendant claims that an official can only “provide 

advice” to a second official if the first official is in an advisory role to the second, and an official 

can only “exert pressure” on a second official if the first official has “leverage or power” over 

the second official. (Id.) However, nowhere in McDonnell did the Supreme Court state that it 

was creating such a rule. See generally McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. 2355. 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 16

To support the proposition that the term “provides advice” requires an official to hold an 

advisory role, Defendant cites the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Birdsall, 

233 U.S. 223 (1914). In Birdsall, the Supreme Court found that fraud indictments were 

sufficient when the officials who had allegedly accepted bribes “were charged with the duty of 

informing and advising the Commissioner of Indian Affairs” concerning the relevant matter. Id.

at 227. The Supreme Court in McDonnell stated that Birdsall was fully consistent with the 

decision in McDonnell because “[t]he ‘official action’ at issue in Birdsall was ‘advising the 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs, contrary to the truth,’ that the facts of the case warranted 

granting leniency to certain defendants convicted of ‘unlawfully selling liquor to Indians.’” 

McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2371 (quoting Birdsall, 233 U.S. at 227–30). Nowhere in McDonnell

or Birdsall did the Court state that officials not holding advisory roles over other officials could 

not be convicted of honest services fraud or Hobbs Act extortion. The same is true of the Third 

Circuit’s decision in United States v. Repak, 852 F.3d 230, 237 (3d Cir. 2017), in which the 

Third Circuit upheld a conviction of an official who held an advisory role. The fact that officials 

holding advisory roles have been convicted for accepting gifts in exchange for providing advice 

does not mean that holding an advisory role is necessary for such a conviction.

Defendant’s argument that an official cannot “exert pressure” without holding a position 

with direct leverage over other officials is similarly uncompelling. To support that argument, 

Defendant cites the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Silver, 864 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 

2017). However, that case involved jury instructions, not an indictment, and the court remanded 

because “the District Court’s instructions on honest services fraud and extortion d[id] not 

comport with McDonnell and [we]re therefore in error . . . [and] this error was not harmless 

because it [was] not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the 

same conclusion if properly instructed, as is required by law for the verdict to stand.” Id. at 106. 

The district court in Silver had specifically instructed the jury that an official act “‘is not limited

to voting on a bill, making a speech, passing legislation, it is not limited to that,’ but rather, 

includes ‘any action taken or to be taken under color of official authority’”—exactly what 

McDonnell determined was an incorrect interpretation of “official action.” Id. at 118 (quoting 

district court jury instructions) (emphasis in original). 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 17

The Second Circuit in Silver did not conclude that the defendant, who at the time of the 

alleged acts was Speaker of the New York State Assembly, was unable to “exert pressure” due to 

a lack of official leverage over other officials when he sent an associate a letter on Assembly 

letterhead offering to help obtain permits for an event. Id. at 120. The Second Circuit found the 

jury instructions improper because a jury could have found that the defendant’s “letter offering 

general assistance with an event occurring in his district—absent any actual ‘exertion of 

pressure’ on other officials regarding a particular matter under their consideration—did not 

satisfy the standards for an official act as defined by McDonnell.” Id.; see also United States v. 

Fattah, 902 F.3d 197, 238–46 (3rd Cir. 2018) (inter alia, reversing conviction because improper 

jury instructions, written pre-McDonnell, could have resulted in jury conviction without finding 

that emails, letters, and phone call in support of ambassadorship constituted impermissible 

attempts to exert pressure or provide advice on a pending matter). The Silver court never 

indicated that it was reversing based on a finding that the defendant was unable to exert pressure 

on other officials because he lacked professional leverage over them. 

Defendant also relies on United States v. Rabbitt, 583 F.2d 1014 (8th Cir. 1978), a case 

decided decades before McDonnell. Id. (abrogated on other grounds by McNally v. United 

States, 483 U.S. 350, 356 (1987)). Rabbitt concerned, inter alia, a member of the Missouri 

House of Representatives who took payments from an architectural firm in exchange for 

“recommend[ing] the [ ] firm as competent architects to persons authorized to employ architects 

for state projects.” Rabbitt, 583 F.2d at 1020. On its face, Rabbitt provides some support for 

Defendant’s position. The court in that case overturned Rabbitt’s conviction, explaining: “[t]he 

Government failed to prove [the architectural firm] entertained a reasonable belief Rabbitt 

possessed effective control over the award of architectural contracts necessary to establish 

extortion ‘under color of official right’ in violation of the Hobbs Act.” Id. at 1028. However, 

the Rabbitt decision provides minimal analysis supporting its decision to apply this requirement. 

Id. Circuit courts on two occasions have called Rabbitt’s logic into question. See United States 

v. Urciuoli, 513 F.3d 290, 296 (1st Cir. 2008) (avoiding the issue of “whether or not Rabbitt is 

correct”); United States v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304, 308–09 (7th Cir. 1987) (“We very much doubt 

the soundness of this reasoning. The fact that the defendant did not control the award of contracts 

should not be decisive if his position as a state legislator gives his recommendations a weight 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 18

independent of their intrinsic merit.”) (vacated on other grounds by Holzer v. United States, 

484 U.S. 807 (1987)). Moreover, the Supreme Court in McDonnell did not cite Rabbitt once—a 

strange omission, if the Supreme Court was intending to adopt Rabbitt’s reasoning. McDonnell, 

136 S. Ct. at 1355–75. We therefore decline to create additional restrictions on the meaning of 

“provide advice” and “exert pressure.”

Furthermore, Defendant fails to address the fact that the standard for sufficiency of an 

indictment is not the same as that for a conviction. As explained above, an indictment is “read as 

a whole, accepting the factual allegations as true, and construing those allegations in a practical 

sense with all the necessary implications. An indictment is to be construed liberally in favor of 

its sufficiency.” McAuliffe, 490 F.3d at 531. The Sixth Circuit has stated that an indictment 

need not specifically state each factor of a charge that must be proven, as long as the facts 

alleged, taken together, support the elements of the charge. See id. at 531–32 (“[A]n indictment 

is not fatally insufficient for its failure to allege these elements in haec verba, if the facts alleged 

in the indictment warrant the inference of such elements.”). 

In McAuliffe, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of an indictment for mail fraud.

Id. at 531. A charge of mail fraud required the government to prove that the defendant had used 

the mail “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for 

obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or 

promises.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1341). A necessary element of the crime is materiality of 

the falsehood: “[a] misrepresentation is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is 

capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.” Id.

(internal quotation omitted). The defendant in McAuliffe argued that the indictment was 

insufficient because it had not alleged that he had acted with intent to defraud or that his 

misrepresentations were material. Id. However, the Sixth Circuit found that the indictment was 

adequate because the facts alleged supported inferences of both intent and materiality. Id. at 532.

In McAuliffe, the Sixth Circuit also cited approvingly the Second Circuit’s decision in 

United States v. Klein, 476 F.3d 111, 113–14 (2d Cir. 2007). In that case, the defendant 

challenged the sufficiency of an indictment that also failed to allege materiality, when “a bank 

fraud conviction required a showing that the fraudulent conduct was material, although the bank 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 19

fraud statute does not contain that actual word.” Id. at 113. The Second Circuit in Klein found 

that the indictment was sufficient because “an allegation of materiality can be inferred from use 

of the word fraud in the indictment.” Id.

As in McAuliffe and Klein, the government’s indictment of Defendant in this case 

contains sufficient facts to notify Defendant of the charges against her and enable her to plead 

double jeopardy if charged for the same crime and facts in a future proceeding. See Hamling, 

418 U.S. at 117. Defendant’s indictment alleges, inter alia, that she took “official action” to 

benefit Abdelqader by helping him “achieve favorable outcomes in judicial and administrative 

proceedings,” and it sets out facts supporting those allegations. (R. 3, Indictment, PageID # 14–

42.) For example, the indictment includes the transcript of a conversation between Defendant 

and a local prosecutor, in which Defendant asks why the unidentified man in the altercation with 

Abdelqader’s nephews had not been charged as well, and states “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.” (Id. at 30.) At a minimum, the indictment supports an 

inference that Defendant had agreed to perform an official act or pressure or advise other 

officials to perform official acts in exchange for gifts or loans from Abdelqader. See McDonnell, 

136 S. Ct. at 2370–71 (“Under this Court’s precedents, a public official is not required to 

actually make a decision or take an action on a question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or 

controversy; it is enough that the official agree to do so.” (internal quotations omitted)). 

Therefore, the indictment sufficiently alleges the elements of Counts One through Four, and 

district court did not err in denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Standard of Review

The Sixth Circuit in United States v. Vichitvongsa, 819 F.3d 260, 270 (6th Cir. 2016), 

described the standard for reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion for acquittal based on 

insufficiency of the evidence:

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo, 

assessing whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 20

the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In so doing, we draw all reasonable 

inferences in support of the jury’s verdict and will reverse a judgment for 

insufficient evidence only if the judgment is not supported by substantial and 

competent evidence upon the record as a whole. Substantial evidence is such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. It is 

evidence affording a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be 

reasonably inferred. In sum, a defendant claiming insufficiency of the evidence 

bears a very heavy burden.

(internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). “Circumstantial evidence 

alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction and such evidence need not remove every reasonable 

hypothesis except that of guilt.” United States v. Odum, 878 F.3d 508, 515 (6th Cir. 2017) 

(internal quotations omitted). “In analyzing such a claim, we do not weigh the evidence, 

evaluate witness credibility, or displace the jury’s judgment with our own.” United States v. 

Wagner, 382 F.3d 598, 610–11 (6th Cir. 2004).

Analysis

Defendant makes three separate arguments to support her case. First, Defendant claims 

the government failed to allege facts sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction on Counts One 

through Four. Second, Defendant claims that the government failed to allege facts sufficient to 

sustain Defendant’s conviction on Counts Five and Six. Finally, Defendant argues that if this 

Court vacates Defendant’s conviction for Counts One through Four but upholds her conviction 

for Counts Five and Six, this Court should vacate Defendant’s sentences on Counts Five and Six 

and remand for re-sentencing. We address each argument in turn.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence on Counts One through Four

Defendant argues that the district court erred by refusing to grant her motion for 

judgment of acquittal after the close of evidence. Defendant claims that the district court should 

have granted acquittal because “the government [] failed to present evidence that Lee had 

actually exerted pressure on, had the power or leverage to exert pressure on, or was in an 

advisory role with, the other officials.” (Defendant Br. at 51.) Defendant argues that the jury 

could have reached a guilty verdict for improper reasons, because the district court did not 

instruct the jury that, in order to convict, it was required to find that Defendant held an advisory 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 21

role or held power or leverage over the officials with whom she communicated. But the jury 

instructions that the district court gave were consistent with both McDonnell’s narrow definition 

of “official act” and Defendant’s proposed instructions, and Defendant raised no objection to 

those instructions when they were presented to the jury.3 More importantly, as discussed above, 

we do not adopt Defendant’s additional constraints on the requirements for an official to 

“provide advice” or “exert pressure” on another official. 

Moreover, Defendant bases her argument on an incorrect standard of law. The 

government did not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant actually took 

official action or provided advice to or exerted pressure on another official to take an official 

action. Instead, the evidence was sufficient if it could have led a rational juror to conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant agreed to perform one of those actions in exchange for 

bribes from Abdelqader. See McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2370–71. As the Court in McDonnell

explained:

Under this Court’s precedents, a public official is not required to actually make a 

decision or take an action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or 

controversy’; it is enough that the official agree to do so. The agreement need not 

be explicit, and the public official need not specify the means that he will use to 

perform his end of the bargain. Nor must the public official in fact intend to 

perform the ‘official act,’ so long as he agrees to do so. A jury could, for 

example, conclude that an agreement was reached if the evidence shows that the 

public official received a thing of value knowing that it was given with the 

expectation that the official would perform an ‘official act’ in return. It is up to 

the jury, under the facts of the case, to determine whether the public official 

agreed to perform an ‘official act’ at the time of the alleged quid pro quo. 

Id. at 2370–71 (citations omitted). The district court did not err in denying the motion for 

acquittal, because the evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Defendant agreed to perform official acts or pressure or advise other 

officials to perform official acts in exchange for gifts. The government was not required to 

prove that Defendant actually did successfully perform official acts or pressure or advise other 

officials to do so.

 

3Defendant stated after the jury instructions were read: “We would like to continue to use the Sixth Circuit 

Pattern Jury Instructions as updated in 2016,” and agreed when the government stated “[Defendant] objected to any 

additions to the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions.” (R. 164, Transcript, PageID # 1722–23.)
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 22

And while Defendant spends a substantial portion of her brief arguing that McDonnell’s 

facts compel a conclusion that the evidence was insufficient in this case, the Supreme Court in 

McDonnell never determined that the facts in that case were necessarily insufficient. Rather, the 

Court stated that “hosting an event, meeting with other officials, or speaking with interested 

parties is not, standing alone, a ‘decision or action’” that could support a quid pro quo corruption 

conviction. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2370. Therefore, 

[s]imply expressing support for the [Anatabloc] research study at a meeting, 

event, or call—or sending a subordinate to such a meeting, event, or call—

similarly does not qualify as a decision or action on the study, as long as the 

public official does not intend to exert pressure on another official or provide 

advice, knowing or intending such advice to form the basis for an ‘official act.’

Id. at 2371 (emphasis added). So if the jury credited testimony presented at Governor 

McDonnell’s trial that he had not expected anything from his subordinates other than to attend 

meetings with Walker, then Governor McDonnell’s conviction would have been based on 

improper grounds. Id. at 2374. However, the Supreme Court specifically recognized that “[t]he 

jury may have disbelieved that testimony or found other evidence that Governor McDonnell 

agreed to exert pressure on those officials to initiate the research studies or add Anatabloc to the 

state health plan,” and the jury could have properly convicted on those grounds. Id. at 2375.

In sum, the Supreme Court remanded because the jury instructions were overbroad, 

which meant that the jury could have convicted McDonnell for conduct that was not unlawful; 

but the jury also could have convicted McDonnell for proper reasons based on the jury’s 

evaluation of the evidence presented. Id. at 2374–75. Because the jury in the case at hand was 

properly instructed under McDonnell, the district court did not have to grant Defendant’s motion 

for acquittal simply due to similarities between the facts of this case and of the facts in 

McDonnell.

The evidence presented at Defendant’s trial was sufficient for a rational juror to have 

concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant either performed or agreed to perform an 

official act or to pressure or advise another official to perform an official act, as construed by the 

Supreme Court in McDonnell. As explained above, “[this Court] do[es] not weigh the evidence, 

evaluate witness credibility, or displace the jury’s judgment with [its] own.” Wagner, 382 F.3d 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 23

at 610–11. It is immaterial whether this Court would have found Defendant guilty, as long as 

there was sufficient evidence presented at trial for a rational juror to have reached that 

conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

At trial, the government presented evidence that, inter alia, Defendant called the chief 

prosecutor for the city of Akron (the boss of the prosecutor in charge of Abdelqader’s nephews’ 

case) and asked why charges had not been brought against the unidentified man in the 

confrontation with Abdelqader’s nephews. The government presented evidence that as part of 

that conversation, Defendant stated “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.) A juror could easily have heard those words and 

concluded that they meant the exact opposite—that Defendant was, in fact, trying to influence 

the prosecutor. Moreover, the prosecutor testified that she believed if she did not return 

Defendant’s calls, that Defendant “might go over [the prosecutor’s] head and contact [her] 

supervisor,” the law director for the city of Akron, and that Defendant had never contacted her in 

such a way regarding other cases. (Id. at 1388.) 

The government also presented evidence that Abdelqader told his brother he had given 

Defendant $200 and had promised to give her an additional $300 if she “finish[ed] up this 

matter.” (R. 126, Transcript, PageID # 924–26.) The jury certainly could have discounted this 

evidence or interpreted it in a different way, but a rational juror could have interpreted this 

evidence and other evidence the government presented as establishing a quid pro quo 

arrangement, as clarified by McDonnell, beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury could rationally 

have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt based on this evidence that Lee agreed to or 

“intend[ed] to exert pressure on [the prosecutor] or provide advice, knowing or intending such 

advice to form the basis for an ‘official act,’” namely, opening charges against the unidentified 

man in the altercation with Abdelqader’s nephews. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2371. 

A prosecutor bringing charges against a defendant is certainly within the meaning of “official 

act” regarding a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy,” as defined by 

McDonnell. Id. at 2374. In fact, the Supreme Court in McDonnell specifically recognized that 

“an ‘official act’ is a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 24

controversy’ . . . [that] must involve a formal exercise of government power that is similar in 

nature to a lawsuit before a court [or] a determination before an agency”—exactly the types of 

matters with which Defendant interfered. Id. at 2372. The district court did not err in denying 

Defendant’s motion for acquittal on Counts One through Four, because the evidence was 

sufficient for a rational juror conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had agreed to 

or had in fact pressured or advised other officials to perform official acts in exchange for 

receiving things of value from Abdelqader.

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence on Counts Five and Six

Defendant next claims that the district court erred in denying her motion for acquittal on 

Counts Five and Six. Under Counts Five and Six, Defendant was found guilty of obstruction of 

justice and false statements to law enforcement. To sustain a conviction for obstruction of 

justice under 18 U.S.C § 1512(c)(2) and false statements to law enforcement officers under 

18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), the government was required to show that Defendant acted with intent. 

See United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 675–76 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Siemaszko, 

612 F.3d 450, 462 (6th Cir. 2010). 

Defendant argues that “no rational juror could have concluded that Lee intentionally 

sought to obstruct justice or lie to law enforcement officers.” (Defendant Br. at 57.) In support 

of Defendant’s argument that the evidence was not sufficient for a rational juror to conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty on Counts Five and Six, Defendant cites the fact 

that “[t]he testifying FBI agent acknowledged several times in her testimony that Lee appeared to 

be ‘all over the place,’ and that sometimes her answers conflicted and they could be construed as 

truthful.” (Id. at 58.) However, just because the jury could have interpreted the evidence to 

indicate that the government had not proven Defendant guilty of Counts Five and Six beyond a 

reasonable doubt does not mean that the jury had to evaluate the evidence that way. Again, 

“[this Court] do[es] not weigh the evidence, evaluate witness credibility, or displace the jury's 

judgment with [its] own.” Wagner, 382 F.3d at 610–11. 

“[D]raw[ing] all available inferences and resolv[ing] all issues of credibility in favor of 

the jury’s verdict,” a rational juror could have concluded, based on the evidence at trial, that 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 25

Defendant intentionally obstructed justice and lied to law enforcement agents. United States v. 

Bankston, 820 F.3d 215, 235 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted). The government 

presented evidence that after Defendant became suspicious that she was being recorded, 

Defendant threw away a letter she had written to the IRS on behalf of Albanna’s son. The 

government also presented evidence that Defendant falsely told an FBI agent that “she disclosed 

on her campaign finance report all contributions that were made to her;” that she falsely told the 

agent that Abdelqader distributed invitations to Defendant’s fundraisers when he collected 

donations for her; that she falsely told the agent that she did not call Judge Larson; and that she 

falsely told the agent she had never spoken with the prosecution regarding Abdelqader’s 

nephews’ case. (R. 132, Transcript, PageID # 1430–32.) These are only some of the examples 

of evidence the government presented indicating that Defendant deliberately sought to obstruct 

justice and made false statements to law enforcement officers. The jury could have determined, 

based on its own evaluation of the credibility of the evidence, that the evidence on Defendant’s 

behalf was more compelling than the evidence the government presented. However, the 

government presented ample evidence at trial upon which a rational juror could have based a 

conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant met the intent requirement of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1512(c)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to 

grant Defendant’s motion for acquittal on Counts Five and Six.

C. Resentencing on Counts Five and Six

Finally, Defendant asserts that if this Court “vacates Counts One through Four, but not 

Counts Five and Six, the Court should vacate the sentences on Counts Five and Six and remand 

the case for resentencing.” (Defendant Br. at 59.) See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599, 

601 (6th Cir. 1996). For the reasons discussed above, we do not vacate Counts One through 

Four, so we need not remand for resentencing on Counts Five and Six. 

CONCLUSION

Because the indictment against Defendant sufficiently alleged the elements of honest 

services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision that the 

indictment was sufficient. And because the government presented sufficient evidence to allow a 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 26

rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty on all counts, we 

AFFIRM Defendant’s convictions. Because we do not vacate Defendant’s sentence on Counts 

One through Four, we also deny her request to remand for resentencing.
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 27

_________________

CONCURRENCE

_________________

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in the lead opinion, which 

accurately sets forth the governing law and, I believe, reaches the correct result under that law. 

Nevertheless, I am troubled by this case and write separately to explain why. To be clear, there 

is nothing admirable or praiseworthy, to say the least, about defendant Tamela Lee’s conduct. 

Lee very plainly traded on her status as an elected official to receive renumeration in a way that 

certainly “looks” illegal. But the question here is whether what she did was illegal under federal 

(not state) law and whether she must serve significant time in federal prison for what she did. 

Although I concur with the lead opinion in this case, I express two specific reservations.

First, the main question in this case is whether Lee received the relevant gifts in exchange 

for performing an “official act.” There is no dispute that Lee herself did nothing official: she 

took no action that would fall under the official responsibilities or duties of a Summit County 

Council member. Instead, the government alleged that Lee agreed to influence the official acts 

of others with regard to a state criminal case and an IRS investigation. But trying to influence 

someone else’s official acts and performing one’s own official acts would seem to be entirely 

different.

The government’s theory, though arguably inconsistent with what the statutes actually 

say, is consistent with what the Supreme Court said in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 

2355 (2016), about the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201. Namely, that a public official 

can be culpable if he attempted to exert pressure on a different public official to influence that 

public official in the performance of an official act. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. at 2370. For that 

proposition, the McDonnell Court relies on its own decision in United States v. Birdsall, 

233 U.S. 223 (1914). But I question whether Birdsall should be read so broadly. 

Birdsall concerns a scheme involving two subordinate officers, appointed by the 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who accepted bribes in exchange for attempting to influence the 

Commissioner. Id. at 229. But Birdsall differs from this case in this important respect: 
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 28

in Birdsall, the subordinate officers were responsible for advising the Commissioner—the same 

person whom they sought to influence. Indeed, the Court explained that “by the regulations and 

established requirements of the Department of Interior [the officials] were charged with the duty 

of informing and advising the Commissioner of Indian Affairs” regarding the matters involved in 

the case. Id. at 228. And the Court stated that the public officials had been charged with 

receiving money “with the intent that their official action should be thus influenced.” Id. at 230 

(emphasis added). Subordinates who must advise their superiors as part of their official duties 

are, in fact, performing “official acts.”1

The Court’s holding in Birdsall does not support the much broader proposition that any 

public official who tries to influence another public official takes an “official act” herself, 

regardless of the relationship between the two officials. To say that Lee is positioned with 

respect to the IRS, for example, in the same way that the officials in Birdsall were positioned 

with respect to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, is a stretch. Yet it appears to be a stretch that 

McDonnell permits.

That leads to my second concern. Assuming that one reads the federal bribery statute 

broadly to encompass attempts to influence that are outside the scope of a defendant’s official 

responsibilities, it would make sense to look for a limiting principle. Here, Lee suggests that a 

culpable public official must at least have some leverage over the public official that she is 

attempting to influence. Of course, there is nothing in the federal bribery statute that would 

require such leverage, but the statute does not seem to strictly prohibit one public official’s 

attempts to pressure another public official into taking an official act, either. In effect, Lee’s 

proposed leverage requirement would cabin the broad implications of the “influence” or “advice” 

theories generally. 

Nevertheless, as the lead opinion recognizes, the Supreme Court has not recognized a 

leverage requirement, leaving the broader implications of McDonnell in place. To be sure, the 

 

1The Court also noted that it was not necessary that the duties of the subordinates be “prescribed by a 

written rule or regulation.” Birdsall, 233 U.S. at 231. Those “duties” could be “fixed” by “established usage which 

constituted the common law of the Department” or by “settled practice.” Id. But that would make their actions no 

less official.
No. 17-3868 United States v. Lee Page 29

McDonnell Court rejected the even broader theories that the government tried to proffer with 

regard to the meaning of “official act.” But in so doing, I believe, the Court left in place equally 

broad (and questionable) theories in the particular influence scenarios that this case addresses.