with jurors for clear error. See United States v. Jackson, 276 F.3d 1231, 1233 (11th Cir.2001). We review the court’s order denying William’s and Chantal’s motions for a new trial and an evidentiary hearing based on alleged juror misconduct and extrinsic influence on jurors for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Cuthel, 903 F.2d 1381, 1382 (11th Cir.1990). Since William and Chantal contend for the first time on appeal that the court erred in sentencing them for the money laundering conspiracy, our review on this issue is for plain error. See United States v. Harness, 180 F.3d 1232, 1234 (11th Cir.1999). IV. Discussion A. William id not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that was obtained in violation of Local Rule 5.01(d). See Tanner, 483 U.S. at 126, 107 S.Ct. at 2750 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Arney v. Helbig, 383 N.W.2d
holding that the trial court was within its discretion to exclude because the record showed considerable confusion on the part of the juror holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when the trial judge questioned the juror extensively enough to satisfy itself that the juror was not biased emphasis added holding that the trial courts in camera interviews were within its discretion because the defendant had waived his right to be present during the juror interviews recognizing in dicta that the juror affidavit submitted in support of the second new trial motion was obtained in clear violation of the district courts order and the courts local rule against juror interviews  on this basis alone the district court would have been acting within its discretion in disregarding the affidavit holding that trial courts denial of motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was justified where there was no evidence presented at hearing on motion that juror had knowingly concealed relevant litigation experience during voir dire and identity of juror as county court litigant was not demonstrated