United States v. Ghalashahi , 92 F. App'x 6 ( 2004 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 03-1770
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ANDREW GHALASHAHI,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
(Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge)
Before
Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
Shelly Kindred for appellant.
Donald A. Feith, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Thomas P. Colantuono, United States Attorney, was on brief for
appellee.
March 16, 2004
Per Curiam. Defendant-appellee Andrew Ghalashahi was
convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371 and 875(d); extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
875(d); and receiving proceeds of extortion, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 880. He appeals from that conviction, contending that the
district court erred when it reserved its ruling on his motion for
judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 after the
government's case-in-chief, and thereafter denied both his original
and renewed motions for judgment of acquittal after the close of
all evidence. We find his arguments unavailing and affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of June 29, 2002, Kurt
Engelhardt and Melissa Harbour met at a house party hosted by
Harbour's friend, Ava Weldon, in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Harbour was highly intoxicated throughout the night--Engelhardt
observed her falling down three or four times, twice falling to the
ground. According to Engelhardt's testimony at trial, they left
the party at approximately 6:30 a.m. After conversing over coffee
at a local restaurant, Harbour invited Engelhardt back to her home.
Upon arrival, she gave him a tour of the home and spoke about her
two year-old son. Again according to Engelhardt's trial testimony,
the two proceeded upstairs and thereafter engaged in sexual
intercourse with a condom provided by Harbour. Within a short
-2-
time, Engelhardt left the Harbour residence. He neither asked for
Harbour's telephone number nor gave his number to Harbour.
Kathryn Burton, a friend of Harbour's who had also
attended the house party, left the Weldon home at approximately 7
a.m. She went to Harbour's apartment, went into the second bedroom
across the hall from Harbour's bedroom, and fell asleep. At trial,
she testified that Harbour entered the room later in the morning
and was laughing. Burton eventually left Harbour's home at
approximately 11 a.m. that same day. Before departing, she entered
Harbour's bedroom and observing her sleeping, unsuccessfully tried
to wake her.
Later that afternoon, Harbour and Weldon got together
again and went shopping at a local mall. They then went country
line dancing at a bar in Methuen, Massachusetts. They returned to
Manchester later in the evening, where they visited a couple of
bars through the night, and then had breakfast together in the
early hours of the morning.
Weldon testified that, a few days later at Harbour's
request, she obtained Engelhardt's phone number from John
Schiavone, a friend of Engelhardt's, and gave it to Harbour.
Weldon also testified that Ghalashahi and Harbour had been engaged
in a romantic relationship at some point.
A few days later on July 2, Engelhardt received a number
of voice mail messages in which Ghalashahi, through a computerized
-3-
voice, repeated, "We know what you did. We're going to the police.
You have to pick up the phone. You're a jerk." The following
morning, Ghalashahi called again and Engelhardt spoke to him for
the first time. He assumed that the caller was Harbour's boyfriend
and apologized to the caller while explaining that Harbour had told
him that she did not have a boyfriend. Ghalashahi told Engelhardt
that he and Harbour were just friends and then asked Engelhardt to
explain what happened between him and Harbour. Engelhardt in turn
told Ghalashahi that he and Harbour had engaged in sexual
intercourse. Ghalashahi expressed surprise because Harbour had not
told him that she and Engelhardt had had sex.
Ghalashahi then told Engelhardt that he had a friend who
had gone to prison for sexually touching a girl and that Harbour
was going to report him to the police for rape unless Engelhardt
paid her $5,000. Later that same day, Engelhardt received another
phone call from Ghalashahi, who this time demanded $50,000 and told
Engelhardt to meet him at a store in Manchester, New Hampshire at
approximately 5:00 p.m. that day.
At the meeting, Engelhardt and Ghalashahi sat in
Engelhardt's car. Ghalashahi identified himself as "Drew." He
gave Engelhardt a handwritten list of demands, which included a
demand for a written apology, a sexually transmitted disease test,
and $150,000. The list gave Engelhardt credit for the $5,000
demanded earlier in the day, even though at that point it had not
-4-
been paid, and listed an outstanding balance of $145,000. In
conversation, Ghalashahi told Engelhardt that Harbour had demanded
$300,000, but that he had talked her down to $150,000. At the end
of the meeting, Engelhardt gave Ghalashahi $5,000. Ghalashahi then
told Engelhardt that he was going to meet with Harbour, who he said
was waiting nearby in Ghalashahi's car.
Between July 3 and July 22, 2002, Ghalashahi called
Engelhardt at least once per day to ask about the money demanded,
on some occasions calling several times a day. On July 22,
Engelhardt contacted the FBI.
While Engelhardt was describing the events of the past
three weeks to the FBI, he received a phone call from Ghalashahi.
With Engelhardt's consent, the FBI recorded the conversation. At
the FBI's direction, Engelhardt set up a meeting with Ghalashahi
for July 23, 2002, mentioning to Ghalashahi that he might not have
all the money by this time.
Later on July 23, the FBI, again with Engelhardt's
consent, recorded another phone conversation with Ghalashahi during
which Ghalashahi admonished Engelhardt for mentioning the meeting
location on the telephone. Ghalashahi spoke in code, referring to
the purpose of the meeting as relating to a car purchase and
payment by cashier's check.
On July 24, 2002, Ghalashahi was charged with one count
of extortion. He appeared before a Magistrate Judge and was
-5-
released on conditions. On August 2, 2002, he was arrested for
violating his conditions of release after the United States
Probation Office learned that he had attempted to contact Harbour.
On August 22, 2002, a federal grand jury indicted him on three
charges: (1) Count One, conspiracy to commit extortion, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 875(d); (2) Count Two, extortion,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d);1 and (3) Count Three, receiving
proceeds of extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 880.
At a January 23, 2003 final pretrial conference, the
district court noted that Ghalashahi might have a defense under the
claim of right doctrine. The government objected to the
application of the defense. The court eventually overruled a
motion in limine filed by the government seeking to exclude the
claim of right defense to the extortion charge and any evidence in
support of the defense.
A jury trial commenced on February 4, 2003. In addition
to the evidence described above, the government introduced
telephone records showing that Ghalashahi had made 131 telephone
1
18 U.S.C. § 875(d) provides:
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm,
association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value,
transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication
containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the
addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or
any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both.
-6-
calls to Engelhardt's cell phone from July 2, 2002 through July 23,
2002, and forty-one calls to Harbour's telephone numbers during the
same period. Also, the government introduced a series of
admissions by Ghalashahi to law enforcement in which he (1)
explained that every time he had contact with Engelhardt he soon
thereafter spoke either in person or via telephone with Harbour,
(2) admitted his intent to scare Engelhardt, (3) admitted splitting
with Harbour the $5,000 that Engelhardt paid him on July 2, 2002,
and (4) admitted that a deposit slip in the amount of six thousand
dollars found on his person at the time of the arrest pertained to
some of the money he expected to receive from Harbour later that
day. On February 6, the government rested its case and Ghalashahi
moved for a judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a).
The court reserved ruling on the motion. The trial proceeded and
Ghalashahi testified in his own defense. He renewed his motion for
judgment of acquittal after the close of all evidence. The court
denied his original motion, explicitly stating that it was relying
only on the evidence presented by the government in its case-in-
chief. It also denied Ghalashahi's renewed motion.
On February 7, 2003, the jury found Ghalashahi guilty on
all three counts. On May 14, 2003, he was sentenced to thirty
months imprisonment on Count One and twenty-four months
imprisonment on Counts Two and Three. This appeal followed.
-7-
II. DISCUSSION
In general, we review de novo a district court's ruling
on a motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). See United
States v. Diaz, 300 F.3d 66, 78 (1st Cir. 2002). We view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, draw all
reasonable inferences and credibility disputes in the verdict's
favor, and then determine whether any rational trier of fact could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. See United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069, 1073 (1st
Cir. 1997); United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir.
1992) (must uphold any verdict that is "supported by a plausible
rendition of the record"). Our review spans the totality of the
evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and we "reject those
evidentiary interpretations and illations that are unreasonable,
unsupportable, or overly speculative." United States v. Spinney,
65 F.3d 231, 234 (1st Cir. 1995).
First, Ghalashahi argues that the district court lacked
authority to reserve its ruling on his motion for judgment of
acquittal made at the end of the government's case-in-chief. The
plain language of Rule 29 provides otherwise:
The court on motion of a defendant or of its
own motion shall order the entry of judgment
of acquittal of one or more offenses charged
in the indictment or information after the
evidence on either side is closed if the
evidence is insufficient to sustain a
conviction of such offenses.
-8-
Fed. R. Crim P. 29(a). The rule continues:
The court may reserve decision on the [Rule
29] motion, proceed with the trial (where the
motion is made before the close of all the
evidence), submit the case to the jury, and
decide the motion either before the jury
returns a verdict or after it returns a
verdict of guilty or is discharged without
having returned a verdict. If the court
reserves decision, it must decide the motion
on the basis of the evidence at the time the
ruling was reserved.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b). The Advisory Notes to the 1994 amendment
of the rule state that the court is allowed to reserve judgment on
a Rule 29 motion made at the close of the government's case-in-
chief:
The amendment permits the reservation of a
motion for a judgment of acquittal made at the
close of the government's case in the same
manner as the rule now permits for motions
made at the close of all of the evidence . . .
. While the amendment will not affect a large
number of cases, it should remove the dilemma
in those close cases in which the court would
feel pressured into making an immediate, and
possibly erroneous, decision or violating the
rule as presently written by reserving its
ruling on the motion.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 advisory committee's note. The Advisory
Committee recognized the problem in a scenario "where the defense
decides to present evidence and run the risk that such evidence
will support the government's case." Id. The rule takes care of
that problem by providing that the district court "consider only
the evidence submitted at the time of the motion in making its
-9-
ruling, whenever made" and "in reviewing a trial's court ruling,
the appellate court would be similarly limited." Id.Here, the district court followed Rule 29's requirements.
It reserved its ruling on Ghalashahi's motion at the close of the
government's case-in-chief upon concluding that the government's
evidence could sustain a conviction. At the close of all evidence,
the court denied Ghalashahi's Rule 29 motion (original and renewed)
based on the same quantum of evidence presented by the government
during its case-in-chief:
I reserved ruling on the motion for judgment
of acquittal under Rule 29 at the close of the
government's case, and considering the
evidence presented by the prosecution in their
case in chief, not considering the evidence
presented by the defense, focusing solely on
the evidence presented by the government, [the
government] persuaded me that the indicia of
fraud, if you will, could be found by the jury
to be evidence of lack of sincerity or honest
belief and the legitimacy of the claim of
right. And therefore, given Mr. Engelhardt's
testimony that a sexual assault or no assault
of any type occurred at all, plus the evidence
of the actions and demeanor and manner of
behavior of the defendant in carrying out the
so-called negotiations, the jury could find a
reasonable doubt every element of the offense
charged, the offense as charged. So the
motion is denied.
The court concluded that the jury could find beyond a
reasonable doubt every element of the charged offenses based on the
government's evidence alone. We review a district court's
reservation of a Rule 29 ruling for an abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Davis, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1388, at *7 (6th Cir.
-10-
Jan. 16, 1996) (citing United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1294
(6th Cir. 1990)). We see none here.
Second, on a more substantive ground, Ghalashahi contends
that the government failed to submit evidence sufficient to sustain
a conviction on any of the charges and that the district court
committed reversible error by reserving and then denying his Rule
29 motion for judgment of acquittal. Specifically, he contends
that the government failed to disprove his claim of right defense.2
2
Ghalashahi had no quibble with how the claim of right defense
was presented to the jury. The district court's instruction to the
jury read:
The defendant cannot be guilty of extortion, or conspiracy to
commit extortion, or receipt of the proceeds of extortion if:
First, he, or the person on whose behalf he was acting, has a
valid claim that he, or the person on whose behalf he was acting,
had a valid claim to the money demanded.
Second, the facts he allegedly threatened to disclose in an
effort to collect that money were solely related to that valid
claim.
And third, he reasonably and honestly believed those facts to
be true.
Under such circumstances, the defendant could not be said to
have acted in a "wrongful" manner. Instead, he is said to have
been pursuing a "claim of right."
. . . In this case, the defendant's alleged use of a threat was not
"wrongful" and the government has failed to carry its burden of
proof if the defendant was acting under a "claim of right." He was
acting under a claim of right if he was acting on behalf of, or as
the agent of, Melissa Harbour; he had a sincere and honest belief,
even if mistaken, that Ms. Harbour had a valid claim against Mr.
Engelhardt for compensation for injuries or other harm she
suffered; that is, sexual assault; and the facts the defendant
allegedly threatened to reveal to the police about Mr. Engelhardt
were solely related to that valid claim for compensation for sexual
assault.
-11-
With regard to Ghalashahi's Motion for Acquittal
submitted at the close of the government's case-in-chief, the
district court commented that the government had presented little
evidence on what exactly transpired between Harbour and Engelhardt
during the sexual encounter. The court advised the government that
it had "to demonstrate that there is some evidence in this case
from which the jury can find that [Ghalashahi] threatened to report
Engelhardt for a crime, and the crime was not related to a claim of
right." The court continued, "Here the crime is assault of some
kind. So you have to say the jury could find in this case that
this defendant did not have a basis to reasonably believe than an
assault of some kind had taken place when he made the threat to
report [Engelhardt] for the crime of assault."
Though the district court may have thought that the
government's case-in-chief was not the strongest of cases, it also
recognized the standard of review for Rule 29 motions and the
inappropriateness of a judgment of acquittal, particularly with
regard to the claim of right defense:
I think the weakness you have, Mr. Norkunas
[Ghalashahi's trial counsel], right now is
Engelhardt says [the alleged rape] didn't
happen. If the jury believes it didn't
happen, they can infer that Ms. Harbour darn
well knew it didn't happen. I agree it's kind
of a leap next to infer that Ghalashahi
therefore knew it didn't happen, but that
coupled with the badges of fraud that [the
government] is identifying, I suppose there
are sufficient badges of fraud here, indicia
of fraud, that coupled with Engelhardt's
-12-
testimony, that they probably could find
beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have
genuine belief in the legitimacy of the claim
he was advancing.
It was along these same lines that the district court
later denied Ghalashahi's Rule 29 motion. And indeed, the
government submitted sufficient evidence from which a reasonable
jury could find Ghalashahi guilty of the crimes with which he was
charged. The evidence was also sufficient to rebut his claim of
right defense. First, the government presented evidence that the
sexual encounter between Engelhardt and Harbour was consensual, and
hence lawful. Engelhardt testified that Engelhardt and Harbour
engaged in a consensual sexual encounter during which Harbour was
conscious and provided him with a condom. Upon being shown
photographs of bruises on Harbour's elbow and buttock, Engelhardt
denied that anything happened between him and Harbour that would
have caused the bruises. From this evidence, the jury could
conclude, at minimum, that Harbour knew that she did not have a
legitimate claim of right to the money demanded. The notion that
Ghalashahi acted as her agent in obtaining the money from
Engelhardt--which Ghalashahi has argued strenuously throughout this
litigation--provides an inferential link to Ghalashahi's own
knowledge that he had no right to the money. Without a sexual
assault, there was no possible basis for compensation.
Second, and more importantly for the purpose of
disproving Ghalashahi's claim that he sincerely and reasonably
-13-
believed Harbour's claim that she was raped, the district court
noted the numerous "indicia of fraud" on the part of Ghalashahi
from which a jury could discredit a claim of right defense. It is
apparent that he did not even know that Engelhardt and Harbour had
engaged in a sexual encounter before Engelhardt had told him. He
made more than 130 phone calls to Engelhardt and forty-one calls to
Harbour over a twenty-one day period. He first contacted
Engelhardt using a disguised computer-generated voice. The
government also garnered admissions from Ghalashahi that he and
Harbour collaborated to threaten to make a claim of rape unless
Engelhardt paid them money, and that he kept raising the monetary
amount demanded and continually threatened to increase the amount
unless Engelhardt paid in full. In addition, Ghalashahi demanded
that the money be paid in cash and used code words to disguise the
nature of the transaction. He and Harbour split the initial
payment of $5,000; thereafter, he expected to receive at least an
additional $6,000. Only when Engelhardt agreed to pay the initial
$5,000 did Ghalashahi and Harbour want more and demand more, from
$50,000 to $150,000, and then possibly to as much as $300,000.
If Ghalashahi knew he was extorting money as an agent for
Harbour--and from his fishy behavior, the jury could conclude
exactly that--then he necessarily knew that he had no lawful claim
to it. Overall, Ghalashahi's conduct during his "negotiations"
with Engelhardt belies his claim of sincerity or reasonableness in
-14-
believing that the money he demanded was rightfully his and
Harbour's. None of the government's evidence compels a sole
rational conclusion in favor of Ghalashahi. Because the
government's evidence permits a jury to find otherwise, he is not
entitled to a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29.
During oral argument on appeal (but not in its brief),
the government asked us to provide guidance on the applicability of
the claim of right defense to an § 875 prosecution such as this,
where the alleged extortionate threat is an accusation of criminal
conduct. Specifically, the government suggested that threats to
accuse a person of a crime are explicitly prohibited by the statute
and are inherently wrongful. Whether to permit a claim of right
defense in such a situation is an issue of first impression in this
court. As the parties neither presented the issue squarely nor
meaningfully argued it to us, we need not address it. See Grella
v. Salem Five Cent Sav. Bank, 42 F.3d 26, 36 (1st Cir. 1994). More
importantly, resolution of the issue would not change the result in
this case. Hence, assuming without deciding that the claim of
right defense applies to this case, the district court's
reservation and denial of Ghalashahi's Rule 29 motion was proper.
Accordingly, we affirm.
-15-