US v. Nadia Naeem, No. 08-4501 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. NADIA NAEEM, Defendant Appellant. No. 08-4502 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MOHAMMAD AMIN DOUDZAI, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00395-MJG-2; 1:06-cr-00395-MJG-3) Submitted: July 1, 2010 Decided: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. July 22, 2010 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William C. Brennan, Jr., William A. Mitchell, Jr., BRENNAN SULLIVAN & MCKENNA LLP, Greenbelt, Maryland, Robert C. Bonsib, Megan E. Green, MARCUS BONSIB LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellants. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Harvey E. Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Nadia Naeem convictions for agency the of and Mohammad conspiracy United to Amin obstruct States, Doudzai appeal proceedings namely, the their before United an States Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006); endeavoring to obstruct proceedings before an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1505 (2006); and making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (2006). On appeal, they contend that the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment of acquittal and for severance, instructing the jury, and granting the Government s request for a protective order. We affirm. We review a district court s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Osborne, 514 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2008). We are obliged to sustain a guilty verdict favorable evidence. reasonable to that, the Id. viewing the Government, Substantial finder of fact evidence is supported evidence could in is accept the light by substantial evidence as most that adequate a and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). A defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge bears a heavy burden. F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). 3 United States v. Hoyte, 51 The Government must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference. Id. Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where the Government s failure is clear. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). Appellants first contend the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find the existence of a conspiracy to obstruct proceedings. They argue, inter alia, that even if they made false statements, there were innumerable reasons why they may have lied, and the Government failed to link their statements with the alleged conspiracy to obstruct USCIS proceedings. Because a conspiracy is by its nature clandestine and covert, it is generally Burgos, 94 F.3d at 857. proved by circumstantial evidence. Evidence tending to prove a conspiracy may include a defendant s relationship with other members of the conspiracy, and the existence of a conspiracy may be inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances. (quotations and citations omitted). Id. at 858 Circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, provided the summation of the evidence reasonable doubt. the record and permits a conclusion of guilt Id. (citation omitted). conclude that the evidence a We have reviewed was support the Appellants conspiracy convictions. 4 beyond sufficient to Appellants also contend the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for endeavoring to obstruct proceedings and making false statements, because the Government failed to prove the existence of a valid marriage between them under Maryland law parents of a son. or that they knowingly lied about being We have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support these convictions. Appellants next contend that the district court erred in denying their motions for severance, thus admitting evidence of their false statements against the other in violation of the Confrontation Clause. system for joint There is a preference in the federal trials of defendants who are indicted together, and a district court should grant a severance only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making Zafiro v. a reliable United judgment States, 506 about U.S. guilt 534, or 537-38 innocence. (1993). The presumption that defendants indicted together should be tried together is especially strong in conspiracy cases. States v. Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 114 (4th Cir. 1990). United We review a district court s decision to deny a motion to sever for abuse of discretion, deprives the which we defendants will of find fair a 5 only trial where and the decision results in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Harris, 498 F.3d 278, 291 (4th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citations omitted). Appellants contend that the denial of their motions resulted in the erroneous admission of testimonial statements in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and their inability to challenge these statements was a fundamental violation of their Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. Because the district court admitted these statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), (d)(2)(E), as they were offered not to prove the truth of the matters asserted but to show the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy, we conclude there See United States was no violation of the Confrontation Clause. v. Ayala, 601 F.3d 256, 272 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Sullivan, 466 F.3d 248, 258 (4th Cir. 2006). Appellants next contend that the district court erred in instructing the jury as to the essential elements of the conspiracy charge. While they acknowledge that the district court instructed the jury on the four elements of the offense, they argue that the instructions were not specific enough. District courts are necessarily vested with a great deal of discretion in constructing the specific form and content of jury instructions. (4th Cir. instruction Hardin v. Ski Venture, Inc., 50 F.3d 1291, 1293 1995). in the Because district Appellants court, 6 we did not review object this to the issue for plain error. See United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d 267, 279 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, Appellants must show error, that was plain, and that the error affected their substantial rights. Id. Even if they make this showing, we will not exercise our discretion to correct the error unless it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, proceedings. Id. or public reputation of judicial We have reviewed the record and conclude that Appellants have failed to show plain error. Appellants further contend that the district court erred in denying their requested instruction defining reasonable doubt. We find this contention without merit. See United States v. Oriakhi, 57 F.3d 1290, 1300-01 (4th Cir. 1995). Finally, Appellants contend that the district court erred in granting the Government s motion for a protective order in accordance with the Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. app. prevented 3 § 3 counsel (2006), from and providing that the protective effective order representation. After in camera review, the district court concluded that the classified information at issue was all either irrelevant or inculpatory. See United States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 1102, 1107 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that the Government s privilege with regard to information classified is information relevant and must helpful to give the way when defense of the an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause ) 7 (quoting Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 (1957)). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective order. See United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 155 (4th Cir. 1990) (stating standard). Moreover, Appellants do not contend on appeal that they were precluded from raising any particular argument or defense as the result of the protective order. Accordingly, this claim must fail. We We dispense therefore with oral affirm the argument district because court s the facts judgments. and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 8

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.