Laney v. United States

construing Russell to hold that entrapment defense is foreclosed to one who was predisposed to commit a crime, “regardless of the type and degree of government activity involved” | sentence based on information regarding the purchase of chemicals for drug manufacturing that was not supported by the record | outrageous conduct defense should be reserved for only “the rarest and most outrageous circumstances” | no due process violation where undercover agent suggested to defendant that he manufacture PCP, supplied him with formula, chemicals and equipment necessary to do so, and continued providing technical advice during manufacturing process | finding the hatchback of a car a passenger compartment