Letter from Paul A. Riley to Judge Matthew J. Maddox, March 2, 2025 — United States v. Henson (Dkt. 196, D. Md.)

Summary

In a two-page letter dated March 2, 2025 and filed as Document 196 in Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM in the District of Maryland, Assistant United States Attorney Paul A. Riley asks Judge Matthew J. Maddox to deny Nichelle Henson's Motion to Dismiss, filed on February 27, 2025. The letter calls the motion untimely: the Court had set a December 6, 2024 deadline for supplemental motions in limine, and the motion came on the eve of trial without good cause. It also says the motion rehashes arguments the Court already considered and rejected, citing the transcripts of Apr. 22, 2024 and June 24, 2024, including the Court's statement that a warrant is not required for the Government to acquire SBA loan applications. The letter is signed for Acting United States Attorney Philip A. Selden, with a copy to standby counsel Justin Brown.

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

Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM        Document 196         Filed 03/02/25      Page 1 of 2
                                                      U.S. Department of Justice
                                                      United States Attorney
                                                      District of Maryland

Paul Riley                                            Suite 400                     DIRECT: 410-209-4959
Assistant United States Attorney                      36 S. Charles Street            MAIN: 410-209-4800
Paul.Riley @usdoj.gov                                 Baltimore, MD 21201-3119         FAX: 410-962-3091



                                                        March 2, 2025
VIA ECF

The Honorable Matthew J. Maddox
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, MD 21201

Re:        United States v. Nichelle Henson, MJM-21-470 – Response to Motion to Dismiss

Dear Judge Maddox:
       We write on behalf of the Government in the above-referenced matter to respond briefly
to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed on February 27, 2025. ECF No. 192. The
Motion should be denied.
        As an initial matter, the Motion should be denied because it is untimely. As the Court
recently put it, the Court “ordered the Government to produce its trial exhibits to Ms. Henson
several months in advance of trial and, upon Ms. Henson’s request, continued the trial date by
several months—both to ensure that she enjoyed a full and fair opportunity to prepare for her trial
and to lodge any pretrial objections or supplemental motions in limine.” ECF No. 179 at 4. The
Court set a deadline of December 6, 2024 for the filing of supplemental motions in limine. ECF
No. 168. Despite this, Defendant did not do so—instead filing the instant Motion on the eve of
trial, months after the Court’s deadline, just days before the trial in this case is set to commence.
Defendant does not even attempt to articulate good cause sufficient to justify her non-compliance
with the Court’s deadlines. She cannot. The untimeliness of Defendant’s submission—without
good cause—alone provides a sufficient basis to the deny the Motion.
         The Motion should likewise be denied because it merely rehashes arguments that the Court
has already considered and rejected and attempts to relitigate rulings that are now the law of the
case. This is not the first time Defendant has taken this tack. See generally ECF No. 108 (Gov’t
Response) at 8-14. Simply put, the Motion should be denied for all of the same reasons that the
Court denied Defendant’s previous barrage of motions orally during previous Court proceedings.
See Apr. 22, 2024 Tr. at 60-72; see also June 24, 2024 Tr. at 81 (“[Y]ou talk about the warrantless
requests for disclosure of SBA loan applications. I think I touched on this earlier. A warrant is not
required for the Government to acquire SBA loan applications. So that's not a basis for suppression.
It's not a basis for exclusion from evidence. The SBA documents are obviously relevant.”); ECF
No. 157 (Order dated June 24, 2025) at 4-5. For these reasons and because Defendant has not

        Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM               Document 196           Filed 03/02/25         Page 2 of 2

identified any “newly acquired evidence” 1—nor any pertinent law—that supports her position, the
Motion should be denied.

                                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                             Philip A. Selden
                                                             Acting United States Attorney

                                                                               /s/
                                                             Paul A. Riley
                                                             Joseph L. Wenner
                                                             Assistant United States Attorneys

cc:     Nichelle Henson (via email)
        Justin Brown, Standby Counsel (via ECF and email)




        1
          Defendant does not even attempt to explain how the items she has attached to the Motion support her
position. They do not.
                                                        2

File and source

File

196.pdf

Size

173,543 bytes

SHA-256

3b76a2f2da7fb6aa649bab554e18f92c3d29603f970568ab2d89eff28a4a4deb

Our copy

196.pdf