USA v. Solomon Manasseh Mustafa, No. 12-15144 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-15144 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-15144 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00234-CAP-AJB-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SOLOMON MANASSEH MUSTAFA, a.k.a. G, a.k.a. J, a.k.a. Black, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (March 7, 2014) Case: 12-15144 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 Page: 2 of 3 Before WILSON, Circuit Judge, MIDDLEBROOKS, * and ALBRITTON, ** District Judges. PER CURIAM: Solomon Manasseh Mustafa and his wife, Kalandra Wallace, were charged in a 12-count indictment with criminal offenses arising from their participation in a sex trafficking operation in the metropolitan Atlanta area. After a jury trial and the dismissal of one count of the indictment, Mustafa was convicted of the remaining counts and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals his conviction, raising the following issues: 1. Whether the district court erred in denying his motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), alleging racial discrimination in the selection of his jury. 2. Whether the district court erred in overruling his trial objections to testimony by a victim, a victim s father, and Clayton County Police Officer Robert Boisis, in violation of the Confrontation Clause. 3. Whether the district court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecution s Golden Rule argument. * Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. ** Honorable William H. Albritton, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 12-15144 Date Filed: 03/07/2014 Page: 3 of 3 4. Whether the cumulative effect of the district court s errors deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial. After review and consideration of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no harmful error in the proceedings in the district court. Therefore, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
