United States v. Karim Bayyouk

MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant Karim Iskander Bayyouk appeals his conviction for obstruction of agency proceedings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Bayyouk was convicted on the basis of false statements that he made during a recorded telephone interview with attorneys from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), who were investigating an insider-trading scheme implicating Bayyouk and members of his extended family.. Bayyouk asserts that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree on which specific statement or statements made during the twenty-nine minute interview constituted obstruction. We review a district court’s refusal to give such a “specific unanimity instruction” for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kim, 196 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir.1999).

Although the jury’s verdict must be unanimous in order to convict, “there is no general requirement that the jury reach agreement on the preliminary factual issues which underlie the verdict.” Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 632 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (plurality opinion) (quoting McKoy…