Motion to Revise Preliminary Jury Instructions — United States v. Aimee Marie Bock and Salim Ahmed Said

Summary

Motion to Revise Preliminary Jury Instructions dated January 30, 2025, Dkt. 498, in United States of America v. Aimee Marie Bock and Salim Ahmed Said, Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/TNL), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The United States asks the Court to revise its preliminary jury instructions consistent with the redlines in the attached Exhibit A. The motion states that the Court held its pretrial conference on January 16, 2025, and that the government requests two edits: to the money laundering counts and to Element Two of the substantive bribery counts. The government argues that the Court's draft could suggest that a bribery verdict requires a bribe before Feeding Our Future began sponsoring the defendant, which Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024), does not require. The signature block names Joseph H. Thompson and three other Assistant United States Attorneys.

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

                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                         Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/TNL)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                 )
                                          )
                    Plaintiff,            )
                                          )
      v.                                  )      MOTION TO REVISE
                                          )      PRELIMINARY
1. AIMEE MARIE BOCK, and                  )      JURY INSTRUCTIONS
3. SALIM AHMED SAID,                      )
                                          )
                                          )
                    Defendants            )

      The United States, by and through its attorneys, Lisa D. Kirkpatrick, Acting

United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Joseph H. Thompson,

Matthew S. Ebert, Harry M. Jacobs, and Daniel W. Bobier, Assistant United States

Attorneys, hereby request that the Court revise its preliminary jury instructions

consistent with the redlines in the attached Exhibit A.

                       BACKGROUND AND ARGUMENT

      On January 16, 2025, the Court held its pretrial conference in this case. The

Court invited feedback from the parties on its proposed, preliminary instructions.

After discussion on the record, the Court directed the parties to submit proposed

redlines consistent with their on-the-record requests. The government’s submission

contains two requested edits.

      First, the government asks for changes to the way the money laundering

counts, both substantive and conspiracy, are described in the instructions. No
defendant raised an objection to those proposed changes at the pretrial hearing, and

the Court granted the request. Those redlines are incorporated in Exhibit A.

      Second, the government asks for changes to the language describing

Element Two of the substantive bribery counts. 1 Those redlines are also incorporated

in Exhibit A. As discussed at the hearing, the language in the Court’s originally

proposed draft could improperly suggest to the jury that a guilty verdict cannot be

returned on the bribery charges unless the bribe (or agreement to pay/receive the

bribe) occurred before the first moment that Feeding Our Future began sponsoring

the defendant’s participation in the food program. That would be improper because it

does not align with the charged scheme: Salim Said is charged with paying kickbacks

(and Aimee Bock is charged with soliciting and accepting them) in exchange for

Feeding Our Future’s continued sponsorship. That is, Feeding Our Future required

ongoing, rolling kickbacks in exchange for its continued submission of fraudulent

claims and distribution of fraud proceeds.

      Nothing about these charges offends Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024).

As the Court has observed already, Snyder just requires the bribe (or agreement to

pay/accept the bribe) to have occurred before some “official act.” Dkt. 402 at 13-20.

Here, in exchange for a series of kickbacks, Feeding Our Future undertook a series

of official acts (such as submission of additional, fraudulent meal counts and

payments of additional fraud proceeds to the sponsored defendants). Under the law,



1 On this second issue, among the defendants, only Abdulkdair Nur Salah voiced any

position. By entering his subsequent guilty plea, Salah has withdrawn his motions
on this issue. Dkt. 496 at 3.
                                             2
the government can obtain convictions on the bribery counts by proving as much

beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither Snyder nor Section 666 requires the government

to prove that the bribes or agreements preceded the start of the sponsorship, and the

instructions should not suggest otherwise.



Dated: January 30, 2025                      Respectfully Submitted,

                                             LISA D. KIRKPATRICK
                                             Acting United States Attorney

                                       BY:   /s/ Joseph H. Thompson
                                             JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
                                             MATTHEW S. EBERT
                                             HARRY M. JACOBS
                                             DANIEL W. BOBIER
                                             Assistant United States Attorneys




                                         3


File and source

File

498.pdf

Size

122,297 bytes

SHA-256

d8983daf0f992877ac6cf23837fad33e283da0ea6cf0ff86027e2e63a7027327

Our copy

498.pdf

Original

archive.org