Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
No. 10-4704
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam OGrady, District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00179-LO-1)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Mirwais Mohamadi was convicted in early 2010 by a
jury
in
the
including
Eastern
Hobbs
Act
District
robberies
of
(18
Virginia
of
U.S.C.
1951),
eight
crimes,
using
and
the
court,
jury
in
bench
proceedings,
trial
found
conducted
Mohamadi
The
contemporaneously
guilty
of
ninth
the
joinder
of
several
offenses,
the
alleged
errors,
prosecutions
including
use
of
improper
inadmissible
I.
A.
On Saturday, May 26, 2007, Mohamadi responded to the online advertisement for prostitution services in the District of
Columbia metropolitan area.
Ms.
Riley,
to
travel
to
apartment
2
he
shared
with
his
$600
in
cash.
Mohamadi
identified
himself
to
Riley
as
As
was
paid
up
front
in
large
bills
to
engage
in
sexual
of
Columbia.
Around
2:00
a.m.
on
May
27,
2007,
Mohamadi asked Riley to drive him from the bar to an ATM near
DuPont
Circle
so
that
he
could
obtain
additional
cash
and
her
Infiniti
and
hailed
taxicab
near
DuPont
While riding in the cab, Mohamadi used Hailes cell phone and
made seven calls to his girlfriend.
stated that his family was from Afghanistan and asked Haile if
he wanted to hire a prostitute.
had also contacted the authorities and reported that she had
been robbed.
County,
Virginia,
with
the
armed
robbery
of
Haile.
Unfortunately for
Mohamadi,
authorities
the
inmates
alerted
the
federal
that
Mohamadi (who was still in jail) sent Bryan a money order for
$250 and supplied him with Hailes home address.
Another inmate, Randy Pressley, reported to the authorities
that Mohamadi had solicited the murder of a cab driver who was
going
to
Grant,
testify
advised
against
federal
Mohamadi.
officials
that,
third
in
inmate,
the
fall
Stephen
of
2007,
Mohamadi (who Grant knew as Omar) had offered $10,000 cash and
a BMW for the murder of a cab driver.
C.
Mohamadi
paid
his
girlfriend,
Amanda
Inge,
to
testify
As a result,
Inge testified that the phone calls she received from Hailes
cell phone the night of the robberies of Ms. Riley and Haile
were from a person other than Mohamadi.
10).
inter
Mohamadi
alia,
thereafter
dismissal
of
made
certain
several
charges
motions
for
lack
seeking,
of
venue,
violations,
identifications.
and
suppression
of
evidentiary
motion
in
limine,
Mohamadi
sought
to
In a
bar
the
other
and
murders
and
prostitution.
his
In
prior
ruling,
involvement
the
court
in
drug
partially
federal
trial
was
initially
scheduled
for
October 2009, but was continued when the district court ordered
a
competency
evaluation.
Following
receipt
of
the
results
conducted
prosecutions
in
Alexandria
witnesses,
in
Inge
6
March
2010.
testified
that
Among
the
Mohamadi
jury.
Both
Ms.
Riley
and
Haile
had,
during
the
regarding
Mohamadi,
their
interactions
with
and
portions
of
Mohamadi
testified
in
his
own
defense
and
confirmed,
inter alia, that he was a convicted felon and that he had spoken
to inmates Bryan and Pressley while in custody.
2010,
the
jury
returned
guilty
verdict
on
On March 18,
eight
of
the
his
convictions
by
the
jury
and
the
court,
and
new
trial,
essentially
realleging
the
for
relief.
The
court
then
sentenced
Mohamadi
to
II.
In
pursuing
this
appeal,
Mohamadi
presents
multiple
contentions of error.
charges
grand
made
by
the
jury
in
the
indictment.
Next,
Mohamadi
contends
that
the
Riley
robbery
failed
to
We
A.
We
first
assess
Mohamadis
contention
that
the
offenses
We review de
8(a),
indictment.
of
improper
joinder
of
offenses
in
an
Cir. 2009).
In pursuing the joinder issue, Mohamadi contends that the
indictment actually related to seven events that should have
been charged separately and thus required seven trials.
specifically,
follows:
Mohamadi
sought
to
separate
the
charges
More
as
of Haile (the taxi driver); the charge that Mohamadi was a felon
in possession of a firearm; three solicitations of murder made
to three different inmates; and witness tampering with respect
to his girlfriend.
on
the
same
act
or
transaction,
or
connected
with
or
Nevertheless, Rule
trials
resources.
of
related
offenses
are
waste
of
judicial
Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 385
(4th Cir. 2005)).
arose from the crime spree that Mohamadi carried out in the span
of several hours during the night and early morning of May 26-
10
27, 2007.
occurred on the same night and were part and parcel of the same
excursion from Mohamadis apartment constituting vastly more
than a mere temporal relationship.
Moreover,
for
the
Hailes
evidence
murder
of
would
Mohamadis
probably
various
have
been
As a result, there is
no
support
for
Mohamadis
contention
that
the
grand
jurys
B.
Next, we turn to the trial courts admission into evidence
of the inculpatory statements Mohamadi made to fellow inmate
Bryan during their common incarceration.
were
obtained
in
the
absence
of
his
lawyer.
In
for
clear
conclusions de novo.
error,
and
consider
the
courts
legal
right
to
counsel
is
contravened
if
the
government
12
he
ha[s]
been
indicted
and
in
the
absence
of
his
district
court
found,
however,
that
when
Mohamadi
first
government
incriminating
because,
officials,
charge.
could
evidence
after
none
the
of
not
about
inmates
them
deliberately
Mohamadis
made
discussed
have
robbery
elicited
of
contact
with
the
with
Mohamadi
Haile,
federal
his
state
13
Notably,
district
Mohamadi
court
does
clearly
not
erred
contend
in
making
on
appeal
these
that
findings.
the
He
concerning
the
Haile
robbery,
these
discussions
had
Mohamadi
officials
was
after
limited
Bryan
to
was
details
in
contact
of
with
Mohamadis
the
killed,
authorities
none
of
that
Mohamadi
was
the
inmates
discussed
And, after
seeking
to
have
Mohamadis
Because
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
We
assess
de
novo
United States v.
The elements of a
Hobbs
Act
violation
are:
(1)
an
underlying
robbery
or
United
The
39-40.
Mohamadi
had
At
hired
trial,
Ms.
the
Riley
government
in
Br. of
established
Alexandria,
enjoyed
that
her
15
Riley nearly $1200 in cash, robbed her of those funds, and then
returned to Alexandria with her money.
Venue under the Hobbs Act is proper in any district where
commerce is affected.
313 (4th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Lewis, 797 F.2d
358, 367 (7th Cir. 1986).
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
element
of
the
Hobbs
Act.
prosecution
to
prostitution
business
show,
by
took
preponderance,
her
into
the
that
Eastern
Rileys
District
of
Virginia, that large sums of cash changed hands there, and that
the money belonging to Rileys business reentered that district.
See Lewis, 797 F.2d at 367 (recognizing that the effect need
not be simultaneous with the attempted extortion).
In
these
circumstances,
as
the
jury
found
beyond
And,
because
venue
that
district
was
was
also
proper
proper
for
on
that
Count
offense,
3
(using
venue
and
in
carrying
proper
where
underlying
crime
prosecuted).
16
of
violence
could
be
D.
Finally, we assess whether there was sufficient evidence to
show that Mohamadis robbery of Ms. Riley affected interstate
commerce and conferred jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.
When
are
obliged
to
uphold
guilty
verdict
if
there
is
have
not
heretofore
inherently
economic
commerce.
Williams,
ruled
enterprise
342
F.3d
that
that
at
prostitution
affects
355.
We
is
an
interstate
have,
however,
Id. at 354.
In
business
was
similarly
an
economic
activity,
and
affected
sufficiently
commerce.
affected
See
under
id.
the
at
Hobbs
354-55
Act
(Commerce
where
is
robbery
17
Mohamadi
nevertheless
argues
that
Ms.
Rileys
business
obstructed.
The
prosecution,
however,
presented
in
the
conduct
of
her
business,
by
way
of
hotel
Viewing the
III.
Pursuant
to
the
foregoing,
we
reject
Mohamadis
various
AFFIRMED
18