United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
ELEANOR L. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of Magistrate
Judge Russell G. Vineyard's Report and Recommendation
("R&R"). Poc. 117]. Importantly, Judge Vineyard
recommends that the undersigned deny Defendants
Jazayeri's and Ghaedi's motions to suppress [Docs. 92
and 93], Defendants' motions to dismiss [Docs. 77, 87,
and 88], and Defendant Jazayeri's motion to suppress
statements [Doc. 86]. In the time permitted for the Parties
to object to the R&R, Defendant Jazayeri filed objections
poc. 125] to the R&R. Within that same time, Defendant
Soleimani filed a motion [Doc. 126] for extension of time to
object to the R&R, which this Court
GRANTS, and thus, does consider Defendant
Soleimani's objections [Doc. 127] to the R&R.
Additionally, Defendants Soleimani and Ghaedi each filed
motions [Docs. 128 and 129] to adopt Jazayeri's
objections, both of which the Court
GRANTS. For the following reasons, the Court
OVERRULES Defendants' objections and
ADOPTS the R&R as the opinion of the
district court reviewing an R&R "shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If
neither party objects, the district judge need only review
the R&R for clear error and "may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge." Id. A party
objecting to an R&R "must specifically identify
those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections need not be considered by the district
court." United States v. Schultz. 565 F.3d
1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v.
Moore. 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). If there are no specific objections
made to factual findings made by the magistrate judge, there
is no requirement that those findings be reviewed de novo.
Garvev v. Vaughn. 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir.
1993). Absent objection, the district court judge "may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]," 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and may accept the recommendation
if it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the Court has conducted a de novo review
of those portions of the R&R to which Defendants object
and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain
error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that
severance is not warranted in this case. Specifically,
Defendants argue that the type and amount of evidence to be
presented at trial against Co-Defendants, as well as the
unindicted co-conspirators, would prejudice a Defendant
against whom there is less significant and less overall
evidence. Upon review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge's finding that voluminous evidence against
co-defendants does not necessarily deny a defendant the right
to a fair trial. In the present case, the Court will use
appropriate limiting instructions for any evidence the jury
should consider only in connection with a particular
also object to the Magistrate Judge's determination that
the superseding indictment is legally sufficient on its face.
Based upon this determination, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Defendants' motions to dismiss be denied.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis
that Defendants, in actuality, seek a defacto determination
as to whether the biological material at issue falls within
certain exceptions to the regulations Defendants are accused
of violating. Despite Defendants' request, the Court
finds that this is a question of fact for the jury's
the Court finds that in recommending that Defendant
Jazayeri's motion to suppress statements be denied, the
Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the statements pursuant to
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
conducting a de novo review of those portions of the
R&R to which Defendants object and reviewing the
remainder of the R&R for plain error, this Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge's factual and legal conclusions
are correct. Accordingly, the Court
OVERRULES Defendants' Objections [Docs.
125 and 127] and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc.
117] as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The Court
DENIES Defendants' motions to sever
[Docs. 92 and 93], DENIES Defendants'
motions to dismiss [Docs. 77, 87, and 88],
DENIES Defendant Jazayeri's motion to
suppress statements [Doc. 86], GRANTS
Defendant Soleimani's motion for extension of time to
file objections [Doc. 126], and GRANTS
Defendants Jazayeri's and Ghaedi's motions to adopt
objections [Docs. 128 and 129].
previously directed by the undersigned [See Minute Order
dated 11/13/2019], Defendants are to inform the Court by
November 26, 2019, whether they intend to go to trial or
resolve the case in some other manner.