PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MAQSOOD HAMID MIR,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 05-4985
v.
HOT AND COLD CORPORATION,
Movant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MIR LAW ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 05-4989
v.
HOT AND COLD CORPORATION,
Movant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-03-156-AW)
Argued: February 1, 2008
Decided: May 6, 2008
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and
Patrick Michael DUFFY, United States District Judge for the
District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
2 UNITED STATES v. MIR
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion,
in which Chief Judge Williams and Judge Duffy joined.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Robert Charles Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Green-
belt, Maryland, for Appellants. David Ira Salem, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, Chan Park, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR-
NEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
Maqsood Hamid Mir and his law firm, Mir Law Associates, LLC,
were convicted on various counts of immigration fraud. Mir’s princi-
pal claim is that conversations two witnesses initiated with him at the
government’s behest violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel,
because those conversations occurred after Mir had been indicted on
the immigration fraud counts. But the retention of counsel for certain
indicted offenses cannot give a defendant license to engage in new,
unindicted criminal activity. See Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 171
(2001). Here the challenged conversations pertained to Mir’s alleged
commission of the additional crime of witness tampering. To bar their
admission into evidence would downgrade society’s interest in the
integrity and proper functioning of the criminal justice process. We
therefore reject Mir’s contention and affirm the judgment of the dis-
trict court.
I.
Maqsood Hamid Mir is an attorney who specialized in immigration
law and owned and operated his own law firm, Mir Law Associates
("MLA"). As part of his immigration practice, Mir assisted employers
in completing various immigration forms. First, Mir assisted them in
UNITED STATES v. MIR 3
completing Labor Certifications (also known as ETA Form 750s),
which are required whenever an employer wishes to sponsor an alien
for work in the United States. Employers must certify that they intend
to hire the specific alien for a currently available position, and pay
him the prevailing wage. Second, Mir assisted employers in executing
Petitions for Alien Workers, known as Form I-140s, on behalf of
employees who wished to obtain permanent resident alien status in
the United States.
Between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2002, Mir filed close
to 2,000 Labor Certifications and numerous Form I-140s. Concerned
that some of these submissions contained falsehoods, the government
initiated an investigation of Mir and MLA. On January 15, 2003,
Mir’s attorney sent a letter to the government confirming that he was
representing Mir with respect to the government’s ongoing investiga-
tion of possible immigration fraud.
On March 31, 2003, a grand jury in the District of Maryland
returned a thirteen-count indictment charging Mir and one of the
employers for whom he worked with conspiracy to commit labor cer-
tification fraud and with labor certification fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1546 (2000). On January 14, 2004, the grand jury
returned a sealed Superseding Indictment against Mir, adding eight
additional defendants, including MLA, and adding racketeering
charges. Id. § 1961.
After the issuance of the original indictment, government agents
received information that Mir might be tampering with witnesses. As
part of its investigation of possible witness tampering, the government
obtained the cooperation of two of the aliens, Chaudhary and Raja,
sponsored in Labor Certifications filed by Mir.
At the government’s direction, Chaudhary recorded three conversa-
tions with Mir. During the first conversation, on December 22, 2003,
Mir told Chaudhary to underreport to the government the amount of
fees Chaudhary had paid to Mir. During the second, on January 5,
2004, Mir told Chaudhary to withhold information from the grand
jury regarding Labor Certification fees, to lie about his work experi-
ence, and not to tell the government about his lack of direct contact
with the "sponsoring employer" Mir had listed on his Labor Certifica-
4 UNITED STATES v. MIR
tion. During the third, on February 20, 2004, Mir offered to refund
fees Chaudhary had paid him if Chaudhary fled the country before
being discovered by government agents.
Raja initiated an unrecorded conversation with Mir at the govern-
ment’s behest in November 2003. During that conversation, Mir
instructed Raja to lie to the grand jury about Mir’s intended legal fees.
In exchange for doing so, Mir said he would return fees Raja had
already paid.
As a result of this investigation, on December 15, 2004, the grand
jury returned a Third Superseding Indictment, which added a witness
tampering charge against Mir. Prior to trial, Mir moved to suppress
the conversations with Chaudhray and Raja. Mir contended that they
had been obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment, which pro-
hibits the government from eliciting incriminating information after
a defendant has been indicted and in the absence of counsel. See Mas-
siah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964).
After a hearing, the district court denied Mir’s motion, on the
grounds that the statements did not pertain to the fraud offenses for
which Mir was charged in 2003, when his attorney was retained, but
rather to the "separate and distinct" crime of witness tampering, which
was not charged at the time the challenged conversations took place.
In so doing, the district court noted that the transcripts of the conver-
sations with Chaudhary could be redacted to ensure that the jury only
considered them in relation to the witness tampering charge. The gov-
ernment agreed to redact the transcripts. Further, the district court
ordered the government to limit Raja’s testimony regarding the
November 2003 conversation to the witness tampering count.
Mir then requested severance of the witness tampering charge,
which the district court denied, stating that "the Court’s limitation and
[the] order that we limit the discussion solely to the separate and dis-
tinct charge cures any issues associated with severance and Massiah."
Nevertheless, regarding the Chaudhary transcripts, Mir refused to
accept the offer of redaction — and insisted that "for the jury to have
the context, we’ve got to have . . . the remainder of most of the con-
versations." Mir then asked the district court to let the unredacted
transcripts in, and the district court agreed. The district court then
UNITED STATES v. MIR 5
offered Mir the opportunity to craft a limiting instruction with regard
to the transcripts. Mir, however, insisted that he could come up with
no appropriate limiting instruction.
During a five-week jury trial, the government called approximately
thirty witnesses, including two co-defendant employers, five other
employers, numerous aliens, and Mir’s former employees. One of
those witnesses, an employer by the name of Zulfiqar Ali, testified
that Mir had filed Labor Certifications and I-140s on behalf of aliens
whom Ali did not know and for whom he had no employment posi-
tion. Ali also testified that Mir told him to stockpile Labor Certifica-
tions for future use, and to sell approved Labor Certifications to
"substitute aliens" for up to $40,000.00 so that he and Mir could
"make money."
Other employers testified that they had worked in conjunction with
Mir to list their businesses on Labor Certifications and I-140s when
they did not actually need or otherwise qualify to hire the alien named
on those documents. One particular employer, Raghib Shourbaji, tes-
tified that he and Mir agreed to make up names for false labor certifi-
cations. Yet another employer, Abdul Javaid, testified that Mir had
filed Labor Certifications on behalf of him and Potomac Automotive,
a company he did not own at the time the certifications were filed.
Javaid also testified that Mir forged his signature on Labor Certifica-
tions, and that Mir filed false tax documents that overstated Potomac
Automotive’s gross income in order to support future hiring. Finally,
numerous aliens testified that Mir had filed false documents on their
behalf. Through the testimony of these witnesses, the government
established that Mir had filed over one hundred false Labor Certifica-
tions and Form I-140s.
The jury convicted Mir of sixteen counts of labor certification
fraud (Counts 7-22) and convicted MLA of twenty-one counts of
labor certification fraud and conspiracy (Count 1 and Counts 3-22).
Mir was acquitted on various other counts, including count twenty-
three, charging racketeering; and count twenty-four, charging witness
tampering. MLA was acquitted on count two, charging conspiracy to
harbor aliens, and on count twenty-four, charging witness tampering.
On September 22, 2005, the district court sentenced Mir to 78 months
6 UNITED STATES v. MIR
imprisonment and fined him $25,000.00. The district court fined
MLA $200,000.00.
Mir and MLA timely appealed.
II.
Mir’s principal claim is that the admission of his post-indictment
statements to Chaudhary and Raja violated his Sixth Amendment
right to counsel. Mir argues that the statements either should have
been suppressed or that the district court should have severed the wit-
ness tampering count from the labor certification counts. We address
these arguments in turn.
A.
Mir first claims that the transcripts of his recorded conversations
with Chaudhary and the testimony about his November 2003 conver-
sation with Raja should have been suppressed, because those conver-
sations were intertwined with the indicted offenses of labor
certification fraud to which Mir’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel
had attached.
The Sixth Amendment prohibits the government from deliberately
eliciting incriminating statements from the accused "after he ha[s]
been indicted and in the absence of . . . counsel." Massiah, 377 U.S.
at 206. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, however, is "offense
specific," and "cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions."
Cobb, 532 U.S. at 167, 173 (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284
U.S. 299 (1932)). As such, a defendant’s invocation of the right to
counsel with regard to a charged offense does not guarantee him the
presence of counsel during the investigation of uncharged criminal
conduct. See, e.g., Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 179 (1985). Thus,
"government investigations of new criminal activity for which an
accused has not yet been indicted do not violate the Sixth Amendment
right to counsel." United States v. Kidd, 12 F.3d 30, 32 (4th Cir.
1993).
Applying these principles, we conclude that Mir’s Sixth Amend-
ment rights were not violated here. Mir’s invocation of his Sixth
UNITED STATES v. MIR 7
Amendment right to counsel as to the labor certification fraud charges
did not insulate him from the government’s investigation of another
separate crime — the serious offense of witness tampering. At the
time of the government’s investigation of possible witness tampering,
Mir’s right to counsel had attached only with regard to the labor certi-
fication fraud charges for which he had been indicted. In contrast, the
conversations whose admission Mir so vigorously challenges here
were part of the government’s investigation of a completely different
offense for which no charges had yet been filed — and therefore for
which no Sixth Amendment right had attached. See Blockburger, 284
U.S. at 304 (holding that offenses are separate when each requires
proof of a fact that the other does not).
Specifically, Mir’s recorded conversations with Chaudhary dealt
largely with Mir’s attempts to obstruct the government’s investigation
by telling Chaudhray to lie to or withhold information from the grand
jury, and to flee the country. Similarly, Raja’s testimony regarding the
November 2003 conversation was limited to the fact that Mir had
instructed him to lie to the grand jury about legal fees. Moreover, in
conducting its investigation of possible witness tampering, the gov-
ernment instructed Chaudhary and Raja to ask Mir questions pertain-
ing to possible witness tampering, not to the pending labor
certification fraud.
There is, of course, a point of factual overlap between the two
offenses — namely, that Mir allegedly attempted to induce false state-
ments by two witnesses to the underlying labor certification fraud.
The Supreme Court in Cobb made clear, however, that there is no
exception to the offense-specific nature of the Sixth Amendment for
uncharged offenses that are "factually related" or "inextricably inter-
twined with" a charged offense. 532 U.S. at 173. In so holding the
Court in Cobb pointed out that "the Constitution does not negate soci-
ety’s interest in the ability of police to talk with witnesses and sus-
pects, even those who have been charged with other offenses." 532
U.S. at 171-72. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that "to
exclude evidence pertaining to charges as to which the Sixth Amend-
ment right to counsel had not attached at the time the evidence was
obtained, simply because other charges were pending at that time,
would unnecessarily frustrate the public’s interest in the investigation
of criminal activities." Moulton, 474 U.S. at 180.
8 UNITED STATES v. MIR
The public’s interest in criminal investigation is particularly strong
here. As Congress recognized when it passed the Victim and Witness
Protection Act, "[w]ithout the cooperation of victims and witnesses,
the criminal justice system would cease to function." Victim and Wit-
ness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-291 § 2(a)(1), 96 Stat. 1248,
1248 (1982) (setting forth declaration of purposes). The Sixth
Amendment simply does not provide defendants with a license to
commit additional crimes with impunity, in this case crimes that bear
fundamentally on the ability of the criminal justice system to do its
job. We therefore conclude that evidence of the witness tampering
was properly obtained and introduced against Mir.
B.
Mir also argues that the district court abused its discretion by deny-
ing his motion to sever the witness tampering charge. If evidence on
the witness tampering count was admissible in court, he contends, that
count should be severed from the underlying labor certification fraud
offenses.
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a), "[t]he indictment
or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with two or
more offenses if the offenses charged . . . are of the same or similar
character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are con-
nected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan." This
court has recognized that "Rule 8(a) permits very broad joinder
because of the efficiency in trying the defendant on related counts in
the same trial." United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 385 (4th Cir.
2005). Moreover, joinder is the "rule rather than the exception,"
United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509, 514 (4th Cir. 1995), because the
prospect of duplicating witness testimony, impaneling additional
jurors, and wasting limited judicial resources suggests that related
offenses should be tried in a single proceeding. See, e.g., Cardwell,
433 F.3d at 385. Nonetheless, under Federal Rule of Criminal Proce-
dure 14(a), "[i]f the joinder of offenses . . . appears to prejudice a
defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of
counts . . . ."
Mir faces an uphill battle in his severance argument. A defendant
seeking severance pursuant to Rule 14 "has the burden of demonstrat-
UNITED STATES v. MIR 9
ing a strong showing of prejudice." United States v. Goldman, 750
F.2d 1221, 1225 (4th Cir. 1984). Furthermore, whether joinder is so
prejudicial as to warrant severance is a matter committed to the dis-
cretion of the district court. The district court’s denial of a motion to
sever "should be left undisturbed, absent a showing of clear prejudice
or abuse of discretion." Acker, 52 F.3d at 514.
Mir has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discre-
tion in declining to sever the witness tampering offense. Indeed, sev-
erance of the labor certification and witness tampering charges would
have made little sense. Mir’s witness tampering was designed to
obstruct the government’s investigation of the labor certification fraud
counts by attempting to persuade witnesses to lie before the grand
jury and flee the jurisdiction before testifying. Had the charges been
severed, the government would have had to introduce evidence per-
taining to the labor certification fraud for the second jury to make
sense of the witness tampering charge. Trying the witness tampering
charge separately would have led to significant inconvenience for the
government and its witnesses, and required a needless duplication of
judicial effort in light of the legal, factual, and logistical relationship
between the charges.
Mir’s countervailing prejudice argument rests on the premise that,
without severance, there was no adequate way to ensure that the tran-
scripts and testimony recounting Mir’s conversations with Chaudhary
and Raja would be considered by the jury only as to witness tamper-
ing, and not to labor certification fraud. In essence, Mir’s argument
approaches a per se requirement of severance whenever the govern-
ment investigates new, uncharged crimes that are factually connected
to a charged offense. We decline to adopt this principle, which has
neither wisdom nor case law to commend it.
Mir points to no case in support of his position that severance of
counts is required for someone in his position. Further, the principle
Mir advocates cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s recogni-
tion of the government’s legitimate interest in investigating and pros-
ecuting uncharged criminal conduct. Moulton, 474 U.S. at 179-80.
Requiring separate trials every time the government obtains post-
indictment evidence on a related but distinct crime would generally
impede the prosecution of criminal activity. Specifically, awarding a
10 UNITED STATES v. MIR
preference as to severance with respect to acts of witness intimidation
would sanction a course nowhere suggested in the Federal Rules.
Moreover, any prejudice resulting from a single trial on multiple
counts can be cured by other, less restrictive means than severance.
See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539 (1993) ("[L]ess drastic
measures, such as limiting instructions, often will suffice to cure any
risk of prejudice" from a denial of severance); see also Cardwell, 433
F.3d at 388 (same). This case presents a good illustration. Here, the
district court ordered that Raja’s testimony be limited only to the dis-
cussion of witness tampering. As to the transcripts of Mir’s conversa-
tions with Chaudhary, the district court offered two other measures —
redaction of the transcripts of conversations and a limiting instruction
— as precautions against any conceivable prejudice to Mir. However,
Mir refused the government’s proposed redactions, suggested no
redactions of his own, and made no attempt to craft a limiting instruc-
tion. For Mir, nothing short of severance would suit.
Mir suggests, however, that it is wrong to adopt a separate crime
perspective for purposes of the government’s post-indictment investi-
gation and a related counts analysis for purposes of his severance
motion. This seems to us to miss the basic point, which is whether
Mir at the end of the day could receive a fair trial on the various
counts with which he was charged. On this score, we have no doubt.
Unlike Mir, we view such measures as redaction, limiting instruc-
tions, and the like as commendable ones, designed to ensure both the
fairness of the trial and the protection of Mir’s Sixth Amendment
right to counsel. Mir failed to avail himself of those measures, and he
cannot therefore be heard to complain that the district court abused its
discretion in declining to sever the labor certification fraud and wit-
ness tampering charges.1
1
Finally, we note that even if the admission of the challenged state-
ments in any way constituted error under Massiah, that error was harm-
less. See, e.g., Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 (1972) (applying
harmless error analysis to a Massiah violation); United States v. Melgar,
139 F.3d 1005 (4th Cir. 1998) (same). As recounted in the facts, the evi-
dence of labor certification fraud was overwhelming, and it is clear
beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty ver-
dict on the various counts absent the challenged testimony. See United
States v. Jones, 913 F.2d 174, 177 (4th Cir. 1990).
UNITED STATES v. MIR 11
III.
We have reviewed appellants’ additional claims with care, and we
find that they lack merit. In particular, we reject Mir’s argument that
the district court failed, in its July 3, 2003 order, to explain why the
interests of justice were served by a continuance of the commence-
ment of trial beyond the Speedy Trial Act’s required seventy-day
period. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) (2000). Contrary to Mir’s assertion,
the district court found numerous reasons why the interests of justice
were served by a continuance. See id. § 3161(h)(8)(A). For example,
the district court found that the government needed more time "to
obtain information from witnesses in the Middle East," and it pointed
out that law enforcement officials had requested that the identity of
one of the government’s key witnesses be kept confidential for an
additional amount of time. Moreover, Mir himself twice moved for
additional time to file pre-trial motions. See id. § 3161(h)(1)(F)
(excluding from the speedy trial time computation "delay resulting
from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the
conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such
motion.").
In addition, Mir’s claim that the district court abused its discretion
by giving a willful blindness instruction is also unpersuasive. A will-
ful blindness instruction is warranted where, as here, "the defendant
asserts a lack of guilty knowledge but the evidence supports an infer-
ence of deliberate ignorance." United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376,
384 (4th Cir. 1999). The record contains myriad examples of Mir
attempting to shift the blame for the labor certification fraud onto his
employees, claiming he was unaware of any criminal activity. This is
the type of situation for which a willful blindness instruction was
intended, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving
one.2
2
Mir and MLA bring numerous other claims, all of which lack merit.
To begin, there was more than sufficient evidence to support the labor
certification fraud convictions under Counts 18 through 22, as well as to
support the fact that MLA existed as a corporate entity (and thus to sup-
port MLA’s convictions on count 1 and on counts 3 through 22). More-
over, there was no need for an additional jury instruction regarding the
government’s burden to prove that MLA existed as a corporation at the
12 UNITED STATES v. MIR
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is in
all respects
AFFIRMED.
time of the acts alleged in the indictment, insofar as the district court ade-
quately conveyed that point in its charge to the jury. Finally, the district
court’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, as
defined by Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007).