Sundaram

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm defendant Chandramoorthy Sundaram’s conviction on one count of bringing or attempting to bring an alien into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(2)(B)(ii). Although the initial deliberations that included two alternate jurors violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 24(c)(3), the district court’s removal of the alternates and subsequent instruction for the jury “to begin its deliberations anew” was sufficient to prevent any prejudice to Sundaram. 1 See United States v. McFarland, 34 F.3d 1508, 1514 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Acevedo, 141 F.3d 1421, 1424-25 (11th Cir.1998).

It would have been better had the district court elaborated on its direction to “begin ... anew,” and instructed the jurors to disregard entirely any deliberations taking place prior to the removal of the alternates and to consider the evidence as if the previous deliberations had never occurred. We conclude, however, that the instruction given did not amount to plain error. The post-verdict poll indicated that the jury’s verdict was unaffected by the alternates’ deliberation, and there was no evidence of prejudice in the record.

We also find no merit in Sundaram’s other arguments…