United States v. Rahim, 071609 FED2, 08-2815-cr
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. AJAZ RAHIM, Defendant, HAZIZ MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR NASEEM, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Appearing for Appellant: Michael F. Bachner, Bachner & Associates, P.C. (Kevin T. O'Brien and Scott J. Splittgerber on the brief), New York, NY. Appearing for Appellee: Joshua Klein, Assistant United States Attorney, for Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ne...|
|Judge Panel:||Present: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges, DAVID G. TRAGER, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||July 16, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: "(SUMMARY ORDER)." A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.
At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of July, two thousand and nine.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Patterson, J).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Hafiz Muhammad Zubair Naseem appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and twenty-eight substantive counts of securities fraud as well as the resulting sentence. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.
Naseem's first trial ended in a mistrial declared after the jury was selected and sworn but before any testimony had been heard. Naseem claims that subjecting him to a second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. A defendant may not be twice subjected to jeopardy for the same offense. United States v. Razmilovic, 507 F.3d 130, 136 (2d Cir. 2007). Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn, and unless the defendant consented to the mistrial, a second trial is barred absent a showing that the original mistrial was compelled by "manifest necessity." Id. We review a finding of "manifest necessity" for abuse of discretion. See id. at 137. Where the mistrial was based on potential juror bias, the degree of deference owing to the trial court is...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP