U.S. v. Malik

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HABEEB MALIK IRA WEINER THONGCHAI VORASINGHA

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 4, 2009

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-614 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2009)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-614.

December 4, 2009

ORDER

RICHARD SURRICK, District Judge

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2009, upon consideration of Defendant Habeeb Malik's Post-Trial Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. No. 104), Defendant Ira Weiner's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29, or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 (Doc. No. 105), Defendant Thongchai Vorasingha's Joinder in Defendant Ira Weiner, D.O.'s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29, or, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 (Doc. No. 108), and Defendant Habeeb Malik's Joinder in Defendant Ira Weiner, D.O.'s Motion and Reply Memorandum for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29, or, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 (Doc. No. 117), and all documents submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED as follows:¹

1. Defendant Habeeb Malik's Post-Trial Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. No. 104), is DENIED.

2. Defendant Ira Weiner's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29, or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 (Doc. No. 105), is DENIED.

3. Defendant Thongchai Vorasingha's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29, or, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 (Doc. No. 108), is DENIED.

4. Defendant Habeeb Malik's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 29, or, in the Alternative, Motion for a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 33 (Doc. No. 117), is DENIED.

1 Memorandum to follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.