Decision and Order — United States v. Ann Spinosa (Dkt. 156, W.D.N.Y.)

Summary

A Decision and Order, Document 156, filed 07/28/26, Case 24-CR-6146-CJS-CDH, United States of America v. Ann Spinosa, Western District of New York. The defendant is charged by second superseding indictment with wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and money laundering, with a forfeiture allegation. Magistrate Judge Holland issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 126) that the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss be denied. The final deadline for objections was June 29, 2026, and none were filed. The Court finds no error, accepts and adopts the report in all respects, and the motions to dismiss are denied.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 6:24-cr-06146-CJS-CDH Document156~ Filed 07/28/26 Page1of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DECISION AND ORDER

V.
24-CR-6146-CJS-CDH

ANN SPINOSA,

Defendant.

Defendant Ann Spinosa (“Spinosa’) is charged by second superseding indictment
with five counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts 1 through 5), four
counts of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Counts 6 through 9),
one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 10),
and four counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957(a) and 2 (Counts
11 through 14). (Dkt. 86). The second superseding indictment also contains a forfeiture
allegation. (Id.).

The undersigned referred the matter to the Honorable Colleen Holland, United
States Magistrate Judge, to address all pre-trial matters, “including all pre-trial matters
that a Magistrate Judge may hear and determine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(A), and those which a Magistrate Judge may hear and thereafter file a report
and recommendation for disposition pursuant to Section 636(b)(1)(B).” (Dkt. 19; Dkt. 31).
Case 6:24-cr-06146-CJS-CDH Document156- Filed 07/28/26 Page 2 of3

On January 14, 2026, Magistrate Judge Holland issued a Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 126, addressing ECF Nos. 77, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112.
In that regard, Judge Holland noted that,

Spinosa has filed six pretrial motions to dismiss, arguing that: (1) the
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., has been violated; (2) the
government has committed prosecutorial misconduct by “failing to uphoid
the rule of law for a speedy indictment”; (3) the government has engaged in
prosecutorial misconduct through “witness tampering and coercion’; (4) the
government has engaged in prosecutorial misconduct through “misuse of
grand jury proceedings”; (5) the government has engaged in prosecutorial
misconduct by sharing discovery with an unretained defense attorney; and
(6) inconsistent statements made by Joseph Gianinni (“Giannini”), a
defendant in a related case, undermine the government’s case against
Spinosa. (Dkt. 77; Dkt. 108; Dkt. 109; Dkt. 110; Dkt. 111; Dkt. 112). The
government opposes each of these motions. (Dkt. 89; Dkt. 118). | held oral
argument on Spinosa’s motions on December 17, 2025, at which time |
reserved decision. (Dkt. 122). For the reasons set forth below, | recommend
that the District Judge deny Spinosa’s motions to dismiss.

ECF No. 126. Judge Holland then went on, over the course of her twenty-two page
Report and Recommendation, to explain why Spinosa’s motions lack merit and should be
denied.

The Report and Recommendation indicated that any objections had to be filed by
January 28, 2026. The Court subsequently extended the deadline for filing objections
numerous times. See, ECF Nos. 130, 138, 145. The final deadline for filing objections
was June 29, 2026, and no objections were filed by that date.

“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to
which no objections have been made, as long as no clear error is apparent from the face

of the record.” United States v. Preston, 635 F. Supp. 2d 267, 269 (W.D.N.Y. 2009).
Case 6:24-cr-06146-CJS-CDH Document156~ Filed 07/28/26 Page 3of3

Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no error, clear or otherwise, in the Report
and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 126) in all respects. Spinosa’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos.
77, 108, 109, 110, 111, and 112) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Rochester, New York
July ZB, 2026

ENTER:

CHARLES J. G|RAG
United States District Judge


File and source

File

156.pdf

Size

89,126 bytes

SHA-256

3c40ae9baed64b622eb8b24d8cba2d63743f04a14b0fdd0c2b14fd39fc65c27f

Our copy

156.pdf

Original

No public link identified.