Order Extending Motions-Filing Deadline as to Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed — United States v. Ahmed (D. Minn.)

Summary

An order extending the motions-filing deadline as to defendant Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed in United States of America v. Ahmed, Case No. 22-cr-223(14) (NEB/TNL), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, signed December 7, 2023 by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. The order grants the defendant's unopposed Motion to Continue Motions Deadline, ECF No. 174, which asked to extend the December 15, 2023 deadline because his counsel was recently appointed. It sets December 29, 2023 as his deadline to file motions or a letter stating none will be filed, and excludes the time through that date from Speedy Trial Act computations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). It directs parties to consult the prior Order on Pretrial Disclosure & Preservation, ECF No. 111, and keeps other dates in ECF No. 170 in effect. The four-page order is Doc. 175 in No. 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS           Doc. 175     Filed 12/07/23     Page 1 of 4




                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA


United States of America,                          Case No. 22-cr-223(14) (NEB/TNL)

              Plaintiff,
                                                   ORDER EXTENDING MOTIONS-
v.                                                    FILING DEADLINE AS TO
                                                  ABDIRAHMAN MOHAMUD AHMED
Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed,

              Defendant.


       This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Abdirahman Mohamud

Ahmed’s Motion to Continue Motions Deadline, ECF No. 174.                  This matter was

previously designated complex under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). See generally ECF

No. 95.

       Defendant Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed requests that the motions-filing

deadline of December 15, 2023, be extended as to him by two weeks because his attorney

“was only recently appointed as substitute counsel” and will be traveling out of state “to

conduct an initial meeting with [him] and to confer regarding submission of motions” on

December 17, 2023. ECF No. 174 at 1; see ECF No. 170 at 4 (setting deadline).

       In the Court’s Second Amended Arraignment Notice & Case Management Order,

the Court stated that “any response to . . . a request [to modify the schedule] shall be filed

within three days.” ECF No. 170 at 6. Defendant Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed’s

motion was filed on December 1, 2023, and no responses have been filed. Accordingly,

Defendant Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed’s motion is unopposed.


                                              1
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS         Doc. 175     Filed 12/07/23   Page 2 of 4




      Bearing in mind the complexity of this case, the voluminous discovery, the

absence of any objection to the requested continuance, and the existence of good cause

shown, the Court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) that the ends of justice served by

granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendants in a

speedy trial and such continuance is necessary to provide Defendant Abdirahman

Mohamud Ahmed and his counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation.

      Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

      1.     Defendant Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed’s Motion to Continue Motions

Deadline, ECF No. 174, is GRANTED.

      2.     This Court previously issued an Order on Pretrial Disclosure &

Preservation, ECF No. 111, which “proactively addresse[d] certain non-dispositive

motions that are commonly filed in the District of Minnesota, which seek discovery,

notice of intent to introduce certain types of evidence, preservation of rough notes, and

disclosure of evidence favorable to a defendant under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1963), and related authorities.” ECF No. 111 at 3. “These motions often seek relief that

is already required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of

Evidence, and federal law.” ECF No. 111 at 3. “To promote the efficient management of

these related cases, the Court issue[d the Order on Pretrial Disclosure & Preservation] to

preemptively address such matters without the need for each defendant to file multiple

motions on these subjects.” ECF No. 111 at 3. Before filing any pretrial motions, a

party shall consult the prior Order on Pretrial Disclosure & Preservation.



                                            2
          CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS                 Doc. 175        Filed 12/07/23         Page 3 of 4




          3.     As to Defendant Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed, all motions in the above-

entitled case must be filed and served consistent with Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure 12(b) and 47 on or before December 29, 2023. 1 See D. Minn. LR 12.1(c)(1).

Two courtesy copies of all motions and responses must be delivered directly to the

chambers of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. 2

          4.     Counsel must electronically file a letter on or before December 29,

2023, if no motions will be filed and there is no need for hearing.

          5.     Except as set forth herein, all other dates in the Second Amended

Arraignment Notice & Case Management Order, ECF No. 170, remain in full force and

effect.

          6.     The period of time from the date of this Order through December 29,

2023, shall be excluded from Speedy Trial Act computations in this case. See United

States v. Mallett, 751 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Exclusions of time attributable to

one defendant apply to all codefendants.” (quotation omitted)); United States v.

Arrellano-Garcia, 471 F.3d 897, 900 (8th Cir. 2006) (same).

          7.     Should a party request modification of this schedule, any response to

such a request shall be filed within three days.

          8.     All prior consistent orders relating to the Indictment remain in full force

and effect.



1
        “Before filing a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b), the moving party must confer with the responding
party. The parties must attempt in good faith to clarify and narrow the issues in dispute.” D. Minn. LR 12.1(b).
2
        U.S. Mail or hand-deliver to 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 9W, Minneapolis, MN 55415.


                                                         3
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS      Doc. 175    Filed 12/07/23    Page 4 of 4




        9.    Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior

consistent Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or

the party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions and the

like.



Date: December      7      , 2023                     s/ Tony N. Leung
                                               Tony N. Leung
                                               United States Magistrate Judge
                                               District of Minnesota

                                               United States v. Ahmed
                                               Case No. 22-cr-223(14) (NEB/TNL)




                                           4


File and source

File

CASE_MND_0-22-cr-00223_US-v-Bock-FeedingOurFuture_doc175_ORDER_2023-12-07.pdf

Size

272,981 bytes

SHA-256

0beab176d955f77e23dd4f0bec24544397b4756bfb6c308426ce886b87774ac7

Our copy

CASE_MND_0-22-cr-00223_US-v-Bock-FeedingOurFuture_doc175_ORDER_2023-12-07.pdf

Original

www.govinfo.gov