Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 08-4501
No. 08-4502
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:
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
U.S.C.
371
(2006);
endeavoring
to
obstruct
proceedings
We affirm.
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
and
Id.
Reversal for
it
is
generally
proved
by
circumstantial
evidence.
and
citations
omitted).
Id. at 858
Circumstantial
evidence
the
evidence
reasonable doubt.
the
record
and
permits
conclusion
of
guilt
conclude
that
the
evidence
We have reviewed
was
beyond
sufficient
to
support
their
convictions
for
endeavoring
to
obstruct
Maryland
law
parents of a son.
or
that
they
knowingly
lied
about
being
for
joint
trials
of
defendants
who
are
indicted
making
Zafiro
v.
reliable
United
judgment
States,
506
about
U.S.
guilt
534,
or
537-38
innocence.
(1993).
The
is
especially
strong
in
conspiracy
cases.
United
We review
discretion,
deprives
the
which
we
defendants
will
of
find
only
fair
trial
where
and
the
decision
results
in
miscarriage of justice.
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.
argue
that
the
instructions
were
not
specific
enough.
Cir.
instruction
1995).
in
the
Because
district
Appellants
court,
6
we
did
not
review
object
this
to
the
issue
for
plain error.
integrity,
proceedings.
Id.
or
public
reputation
of
judicial
further
contend
that
the
district
court
We
find
this
contention
without
merit.
See
United
Appellants
contend
that
the
district
court
app.
prevented
counsel
(2006),
from
and
providing
that
the
protective
effective
order
representation.
to
information
classified
is
information
relevant
and
must
helpful
to
give
the
way
when
defense
of
the
an
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.
fail.
We
We
dispense
therefore
with
oral
affirm
the
argument
district
because
courts
the
facts
judgments.
and
legal
AFFIRMED