that might arguably fall outside the scope of Rule 606(b) are: (1) Porter’s statement that Taylor informed juror Hart, her ex-fiance, that her mother had purchased William’s product; and (2) Porter’s statement that Taylor said she observed juror Hart talking openly with non-jurors' about his belief that the McCorkles were guilty and his hatred toward William’s lawyer, F. Lee Bailey. We cannot say, on the record presented to us, that either of these statements show extrinsic influence on Juror Hart or any other juror. Porter’s Affidavit does not allege that Hart was influenced by these external communications, and neither William nor Chantal offer any other evidence to show that juror Hart was influenced in any way. See United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459, 1465 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Cf. United States v. Barshov, 733 F.2d 842,
recognizing that failure to hold a hearing constitutes ah abuse of discretion only where there is evidence that the jury was subjected to influence by outside sources holding that allegations of influence by an unnamed person outside the jury required the holding of an evidentiary hearing to determine extrinsic influence holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that the lower court was not required to hold a hearing on a motion to transfer