Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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
________________________
(September 24, 2013)
Before CARNES, Chief Judge, 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: 09/24/2013 Page: 2 of 3
In an earlier opinion in this case, we rejected the government’s cross-appeal
arguments concerning the amount of the forfeiture that the Appellants were
ordered to pay and the district court’s failure to order them to pay restitution.
United States v. Anghaie, No. 12-10086, 2013 WL 2451168 (11th Cir. June 7,
2013). We also rejected the Appellants’ arguments that the evidence was
insufficient to convict them on the counts for which they were convicted. Id. But
we remanded for the limited purpose of having the district court conduct an
evidentiary hearing into the Appellants’ claim that they were entitled to a new trial
because of a pre-verdict conversation between one of the jurors and Dr. Abdol
Chini about Appellant Samim Anghaie.
On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, entered findings of
fact, once again denied the Appellants’ motions for a new trial, and directed the
clerk to transmit its order to this Court, which constituted a return from remand.
The district court found that the conversation between the juror and Dr.
Chini did not involve disputed facts in the case, and the only statements Dr. Chini
made about any of the appellants were laudatory statements about Appellant
Anghaie. The court also found that the juror did not discuss with any of the other
jurors his conversation with Dr. Chini. Based on those fact findings, which are
fully supported by the evidence, we agree with the district court’s determination
2
Case: 12-10086 Date Filed: 09/24/2013 Page: 3 of 3
that none of the Appellants were harmed or prejudiced in any way by the
conversation and their motions for a new trial was were due to be denied.
The convictions and sentences of all of the Appellants, including the
forfeiture order and the order on remand denying the motions for a new trial, are
AFFIRMED.
3