Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Samim Anghaie, 12-10086 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 12-10086 Visitors: 38
Filed: Jun. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 06/07/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 12-10086 _ D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00037-SPM-GRJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellee Cross Appellant, versus SAMIM ANGHAIE, SOUSAN ANGHAIE, Defendants-Appellants Cross Appellees. _ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _ (June 7, 2013) Before CARNES, WILSON, and EBEL, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Honor
More
Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 06/07/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-10086 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00037-SPM-GRJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellee Cross Appellant, versus SAMIM ANGHAIE, SOUSAN ANGHAIE, Defendants-Appellants Cross Appellees. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (June 7, 2013) Before CARNES, WILSON, and EBEL, * Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 06/07/2013 Page: 2 of 3 Having studied the briefs and the relevant parts of the record, and having heard oral argument in this case, we have concluded that there is no merit to the Appellants’ arguments that the evidence was insufficient to convict them on the counts for which they were convicted. We have also concluded that there is no merit to the Appellee’s cross-appeal arguments that the district court erred in the amount of the forfeiture it ordered Appellants to pay or in failing to order them to pay restitution. We are convinced, however, that the district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing into the Appellants’ claim regarding the alleged conversation between juror Moss and Dr. Abdol Chini about Appellant Samim Anghaie. We leave to the district court’s discretion the procedural question of whether to hear testimony from Dr. Chini before deciding if it needs to hear testimony from juror Moss, or to hear testimony from both of them in any event. We imply no view about how the district court should decide the issue once it conducts the evidentiary inquiry, nor do we imply any view about whether Appellant Sousan Anghaie could be entitled to any relief based on this claim if the alleged conversation was not about her. The judgment in this case is VACATED AND REMANDED for the limited purpose of an evidentiary hearing into the allegations that juror Moss discussed the 2 Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 06/07/2013 Page: 3 of 3 case with Dr. Chini before the trial was complete and for a decision on the issue or issues involved in that claim. 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer