United States v. Naeem, 072210 FED4, 08-4501

Docket Nº:08-4501
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. NADIA NAEEM, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOHAMMAD AMIN DOUDZAI, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney: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, Balti...
Judge Panel:Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 22, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NADIA NAEEM, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MOHAMMAD AMIN DOUDZAI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-4501

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

July 22, 2010

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: July 1, 2010.

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).

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.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Nadia Naeem and Mohammad Amin Doudzai appeal their convictions for conspiracy to obstruct proceedings before an agency of the United States, namely, the United 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 that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is "evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate 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." United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). The Government must be given...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP