Decision and Order — United States v. Jordan (Dkt. 104, W.D.N.Y.)

Summary

Decision and order of October 25, 2022 (Document 104) in United States v. Larry D. Jordan II, 21-CR-9 (JLS) (HKS), in the Western District of New York, signed by U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. Jordan faces a five-count indictment that includes conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, bank fraud and monetary transactions in criminally derived property; his co-defendant is his brother, Sutukh El. Jordan moved to suppress statements he allegedly made after his arrest at his residence and at the FBI Office, but did not file the affidavit Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. gave him until September 12, 2022 to submit. Judge Schroeder’s October 5, 2022 Report & Recommendation advised denial on that ground, and no party objected. The court adopts it, denies the motion to suppress and refers the case back to Judge Schroeder.

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 1:21-cr-00009-JLS-HKS Document 104 Filed 10/25/22 Page1of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

L8r c LoewenGu <<

We
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STERN DISTRI

Vv.

21-CR-9 (JLS) (HKS)
LARRY D. JORDAN II,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

Defendant Larry D. Jordan II is charged in a five-count indictment with one
count each of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1349; bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(2) and 2; and engaging
in monetary transactions with criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1957 and 2. Dkt. 36. Jordan is charged along with his co-defendant and brother,
Sutukh El. On January 27, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth
Schroeder, Jr. 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. 38.

On March 25, 2022, as well as filing motions jointly with Defendant E],
Defendant Jordan specifically moved to suppress his alleged post-arrest statements
while in custodial interrogation at his residence and at the FBI Office. Dkt. 83, at
17-19. Jordan alternatively requested a hearing. Jd. at 19. The Government

responded on May 6, 2022. Dkt. 90.

Case 1:21-cr-00009-JLS-HKS Document 104 Filed 10/25/22 Page 2 of 3

Judge Schroeder heard oral argument on pretrial motions on August 31,
2022. See Minute Entry, August 31, 2022. At that proceeding, Judge Schroeder
allowed Defendant Jordan until September 12, 2022 to file an affidavit in support of
his suppression motion.! Id. The Government was scheduled to respond to any
filings by Jordan no later than September 19, 2022. Id. Jordan did not file an
affidavit or any other submission. On September 14, 2022, the Government filed a
“Notice of Defendant’s Failure to File Affidavit.” Dkt. 101.

On October 5, 2022, Judge Schroeder issued a Report & Recommendation,
(“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny the motion to suppress because Jordan
failed to submit an affidavit as directed. See generally Dkt. 102. No party filed
objections, and the time to do so has passed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2).

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of a 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)(8). As for non-dispositive matters, the district judge reviews appeals ofa

magistrate judge’s order under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see United States v. Kelly, No. 18-CR-217-A, 2021 WL 1920777,

1 While not relevant to the instant R&R, Judge Schroeder denied the remainder of
Defendant’s discovery motions at the proceeding on August 31, 2022. Defendants’
motion regarding selective enforcement and prosecution remains pending with
Judge Schroeder.

Case 1:21-cr-00009-JLS-HKS Document 104 Filed 10/25/22 Page 3of3

at *2 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2021) (reviewing non-dispositive orders denying motions
for disclosure of certain information under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law

standard of review).

This Court has reviewed the relevant record and Judge Schroeder’s R&R.
Based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and

adopts Judge Schroeder’s recommendation to deny Jordan’s motion to suppress

(Dkt. 83).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court DENIES Jordan’s

motion to suppress (Dkt. 88).

The Court refers this matter back to Judge Schroeder, consistent with the

referral order at Dkt. 38, for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2022
Buffalo, New York

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR.
UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File

104.pdf

Size

854,773 bytes

SHA-256

63026361111bd7ac119571a1d8436cd9c038a14349a12e4a96e5090816a24556

Our copy

104.pdf