Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Uniteed States v. Soleimani

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

November 14, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MASOUD SOLEIMANI, MAHBOOBE GHAEDI, and MARYAM JAZAYERI

          ORDER

          ELEANOR L. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.[1] For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Defendants' objections and ADOPTS the R&R as the opinion of the Court.

         I. Legal Standard

         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).

         II. Discussion

         Defendants 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 Defendant.

         Defendants 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 determination.

         Finally, 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).

         III. Conclusion

         After 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].

         As 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.[2]

         SO ORDERED.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.