USA v. Hosseini, Amir, No. 08-1879 (7th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 7, 2012.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 June 6, 2012 Before DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge Nos. 08 1879 & 08 1880 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 05 CR 254 v. AMIR HOSSEINI and HOSSEIN OBAEI, Defendants Appellants. Milton I. Shadur, Judge. O R D E R IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion dated May 7, 2012, shall be amended as follows: The last paragraph on page 6 and the following, full paragraph on page 7 are amended to read: This argument about the meaning of proceeds in the money laundering statute is new on appeal. To preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must move for a judgment of acquittal in the trial court. United States v. Tavarez, 626 F.3d 902, 906 (7th Cir. 2010). Both defendants did so here; they moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at the close of the government s case, and they renewed their motions at the close of evidence and again after the verdict. But they never raised the proceeds issue; Nos. 08 1879 & 08 1880 Page 2 instead, their Rule 29 motions identified other grounds for acquittal. For example, they argued that selling cars to drug dealers was not evidence of a RICO enterprise or a RICO or money laundering conspiracy. Obaei also argued that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of aiding and abetting a drug conspiracy. As a general matter, and unlike its analogue in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does not require specificity when moving for a judgment of acquittal. Compare FED. R. CRIM. P. 29 with FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)(2) (motions for judgment as a matter of law must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment ). But we have held that a defendant s choice to raise specific arguments and omit others in a Rule 29 motion has consequences on appeal. We have held that when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence by motion for judgment of acquittal and makes specific arguments in support of that motion, any arguments omitted are thereby forfeited. See United States v. Groves, 470 F.3d 311, 324 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Moore, 363 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 2004) ( [W]hen . . . a [Rule 29] motion raises specific arguments, any claims not presented in the motion are waived. ), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Young v. United States, 543 U.S. 1100 (2005)). We might alternatively construe the proceeds argument as a claim of instructional error. But neither defendant raised the definition of proceeds as a ground of objection to the jury instructions.
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.
