5th Circuit Rejects 6th Amendment Claims in Upholding Iranian's Export Violation Sentence
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a Sept. 7 opinion affirmed the conviction and sentence of Iranian national Mehrdad Ansari for violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas convicted Ansari for his role in a scheme to obtain military sensitive parts for Iran in violation of the Iran trade embargo. The appellate court upheld his conviction, rejecting his two constitutional arguments against the district court's ruling and Ansari's evidentiary claims (United States v. Ansari, 5th Cir. #21-50915).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Ansari, a resident of the United Arab Emirates and Germany, attempted to transship testing equipment using his companies, Gulf Gate Sea Cargo and Global Merchant, both located in Dubai. Ansari's co-defendants, Taiwan citizen Susan Yip and Iran citizen Mehrdad Foomanie, allegedly obtained the equipment. Yip and Foomanie obtained over $2.6 million worth of parts without telling the merchants that the parts were to be shipped to Iran. Ansari was sentenced in September 2021 to 63 months in prison (see 2109150033).
An appeal followed, with Ansari making two Sixth Amendment claims, saying the district court's refusal to toss the nearly decade-old indictment violated the right to a speedy trial and the district court's COVID-related restrictions on a jury trial violated the right to a jury trial. Judges Carolyn King, Stuart Duncan and Kurt Engelhardt ruled against both claims. Engelhardt, the author of the opinion, first addressed the speedy trial claim, looking to the four-part test used to assess speedy trial claims. The criteria look to the length of the delay, reason for the delay, the diligence in asserting the right to a speedy trial and the delay's prejudice.
Engelhardt said Ansari's claim falls flat "for the simple reason that the Government was not at fault in producing the delay Ansari now complains of." The defendant evaded apprehension and was neither diligent nor prejudiced by the delay in the action, the judge said. Further, the U.S. repeatedly showed its diligence in apprehending Ansari, the judge said.
"Indeed, as far as Ansari’s speedy trial right is concerned, the lengthy delay between his indictment and his conviction is all smoke and no fire," the opinion said. "This case is worlds apart from the paradigmatic speedy trial case in which a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right is violated by the Government’s 'deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense' or in which a defendant is kept in custody or legal limbo for an undue length of time as an inappropriate form of punishment."
The second Sixth Amendment claim, which Engelhardt dubbed as "even more ambitious," met a similar fate. During the trial, the district court restricted the public to an overflow room due to COVID-19 concerns. The court said this was not enough to cut against Ansari's right to a public trial. "Because the Sixth Amendment does not require a district court to render a particularized dissertation to justify a partial courtroom closure that is reasonable, neutral, and largely trivial (i.e., requiring spectators to watch and listen on livestream rather than in-person), the district court’s partial closure of Ansari’s jury trial was not unconstitutional," the opinion said.
On Ansari's evidentiary claims, the court ruled that because "a rational trier of fact could indeed find the essential elements of Ansari’s crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, ... his evidentiary-sufficiency challenge is unavailing." The judges looked to each of the counts on which Ansari was convicted, and found that the evidence clearly establishes the defendant willfully tried to facilitate the export of U.S.-origin dual use commodities into Iran without the needed authorizations, among other offenses.