US v. Younis El Sayedri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00290-AJT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999421099].. [13-4747, 13-4761]

Appeal: 13-4747

Doc: 45

Filed: 08/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4747

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
YOUNIS EL SAYEDRI, a/k/a Younis Badri, a/k/a Younis
Abdulkarim Mohamed El Sayedri, a/k/a Younis Abdalkarim
Mohamed, a/k/a Younis Abdel Mohamed Badri, a/k/a Younis
Abdelkar Badri, a/k/a Youngish Elsayedri,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-4761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUNEEN SABAR, a/k/a Runeen Mohamed Osman Sabar, a/k/a Maryam
Hasan Khariri, a/k/a Runeen Bar Mohamed Osman Sabar, a/k/a
Runeen Mohamed Osman Ali Sabar, a/k/a Runeen Mohamed Osman,
a/k/a Ariej Ali, a/k/a Ariej Mossman Ali Sabar,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00290-AJT-1; 1:12-cr-00290-AJT-2)

Appeal: 13-4747

Doc: 45

Submitted:

Filed: 08/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 5

July 29, 2014

Decided:

August 22, 2014

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph
J.
McCarthy,
DELANEY,
MCCARTHY
&
COLTON,
P.C.,
Alexandria, Virginia; Gretchen L. Taylor, TAYLOR LAW COMPANY,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants.
Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, C. Alexandria Bogle, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Julia K. Martinez, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-4747

Doc: 45

Filed: 08/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, Younis El Sayedri (“El Sayedri”)
and

Runeen

Sabar

(“Sabar”),

were

convicted

of

one

count

of

conspiracy to commit immigration document fraud and aiding and
abetting

such

conduct,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§§

371,

2

(2012).

El Sayedri was also convicted of one count of passport

forgery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1543 (2012), and one count
of making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001
(2012).

We affirm.
The appellants contend that the district court erred

in denying their motion for a judgment of acquittal.

We review

de novo the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion.
States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011).

United

“If there

is substantial evidence to support the verdict, after viewing
all of the evidence and the inferences therefrom in the light
most

favorable

to

the

Government,

the

court

must

affirm.”

United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 572 (4th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks omitted).

“Substantial evidence is

that evidence which a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

United States v. Al Sabahi,

719

(internal

F.3d

305,

311

(4th

Cir.)

omitted)), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 464 (2013).

quotation

marks

The court does

not “review the credibility of the witnesses and assume[s] that
3

Appeal: 13-4747

Doc: 45

Filed: 08/22/2014

Pg: 4 of 5

the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor
of the government.”

United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245

(4th Cir. 2007).
To

support

a

conviction

for

conspiracy

to

commit

immigration document fraud, the Government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between two or more
persons to commit immigration document fraud, by agreeing to
present an application or document required by immigration laws
that will contain a false statement of a material fact and that
at least one of the conspirators engaged in an overt act in
furtherance of that agreement.

United States v. Archer, 671

F.3d 149, 154 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2011).
We have reviewed the appellants’ claims and conclude
they are without merit.

Although the appellants contend that no

conduct relating to the charge began in 2000, as the indictment
alleged, the beginning date of the conspiracy is not an element
of the offense.

United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 999 (4th

Cir. 1997) (factfinder may find that the conspiracy started at
anytime within the alleged time frame).

Also, after reviewing

the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to
support the conspiracy charge.

Likewise, regarding El Sayedri’s

other two convictions, we conclude that both are supported by
sufficient evidence.

4

Appeal: 13-4747

Doc: 45

Filed: 08/22/2014

The

appellants

Pg: 5 of 5

also

challenge

the

district

court’s

denial of a motion for a mistrial, which we review for an abuse
of discretion.
Cir.

2008)

court’s

United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327, 330 (4th

(discussing

denial

“will

motion
be

for

mistrial).

disturbed

extraordinary of circumstances.”
F.3d 248, 257 (4th Cir. 1997).

only

The

under

district
the

most

United States v. Dorlouis, 107
We conclude that the appellants’

challenge to the district court’s denial of their motion for a
mistrial after a third defendant was dismissed from the case is
wholly without merit.
We also conclude that the charges were properly joined
and

that

the

appellants’

district

motion

for

court
a

did

not

severance,

logically related to each other.

err
as

in

the

denying

the

charges

were

See United States v. Cardwell,

433 F.3d 378, 385 (4th Cir. 2005).

Finally, we conclude that

the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion
for a mistrial after it granted a judgment of acquittal as to
some, but not all of the charges.

See United States v. Hornsby,

666 F.3d 296, 311 (4th Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5