Decision and Order — United States v. Hutchins (Dkt. 44, W.D.N.Y.)

Summary

A decision and order in United States v. John L. Hutchins, 22-CR-42 (JLS), in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, dated and filed May 30, 2023 as Document 44. It recounts that on March 24, 2022 a grand jury indicted Hutchins on crimes related to the Paycheck Protection Program and that Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy was designated to handle pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). On December 14, 2022 the defendant moved to dismiss Count 11, to suppress statements and for discovery, and the government opposed on February 13, 2023. Adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court denies dismissal of Count 11 and suppression of statements.

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

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:22-cr-00042-JLS-JJM Document 44 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

       Vv.
                                                  22-CR-42 (JLS)
 JOHN L. HUTCHINS,

             Defendant.

                           DECISION AND ORDER

      On March 24, 2022, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant

John L. Hutchins with various crimes related to the Paycheck Protection Program.

See Dkt. 1. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy was designated

to hear and determine, and report and recommend on, all pre-trial proceedings

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). Dkt. 6.

      On December 14, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Count 11 of the

indictment, a motion to suppress statements, and various other discovery motions.

Dkt. 23. On February 13, 2023, the government responded in opposition to

Defendant’s motions (Dkt. 23). Dkt. 25. In its opposition, the government moved

for reciprocal discovery pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. Jd. at 19. Defendant replied on February 21, 2023. Dkt. 26. The Court

held oral argument on March 29, 2023. See Dkt. 33. The Court then deemed all

aspects of Defendant’s motions (Dkt. 23) resolved except his requests for (1)

dismissal of Count 11 of the Indictment; and (2) suppression of statements. See

Case 1:22-cr-00042-JLS-JJM Document 44 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 3

Dkt. 34. Defendant thereafter filed a supplemental submission related to the
pending motions. Dkt. 35.

On April 14, 2028, Judge McCarthy issued a combined Report,
Recommendation, and Order (“R&R”) with respect to the remaining aspects of
Defendant’s (Dkt. 23) motions. Dkt. 36. Specifically, Judge McCarthy
recommended that this Court deny Defendant’s request for dismissal of Count 11 of
the Indictment, and further deny Defendant’s request for suppression of
statements. See id. at 9.)

On April 28, 2028, Defendant filed objections to the R&R. Dkt. 37.
Defendant objects to Judge McCarthy’s recommendation that this Court “deny
dismissal of Count 11 of the indictment and the suppression of statements made by
the defendant on November 2, 2020.” Jd. at 2. With respect to Count 11, Defendant
argues that “Due Process requires that the defendant be provided notice of the fact
that it is a crime to make a false statement under § 1001.” The government
responded on May 12, 2023. Dkt. 39. Defendant did not reply.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
ofa magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A district
court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim.

P. 59(b)(3).

1 The Court also granted the government’s motion for reciprocal discovery. Id.

2

Case 1:22-cr-00042-JLS-JJM Document 44 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 3

This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R, objections, response, and the
record in this case. Based on that de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts
Judge McCarthy’s recommendation.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court DENIES Defendant’s
request for dismissal of Count 11 of the Indictment, and further DENIES

Defendant's request for suppression of statements.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2023
Buffalo, New York

HN L. SINATRA,

NITED STATES BIS CT JUDGE

File and source

File

44.pdf

Size

442,603 bytes

SHA-256

113ae6b40e6ff032a5674d8fcc82026ca8e4d26b28bd13e5a3fbf0b139a21bfa

Our copy

44.pdf