Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 167, D. Minn.)

Summary

Letter dated August 31, 2023 filed as Doc. 167 in United States v. Aimee Bock et al., 22 CR 223 (NEB/TNL), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota to the Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, written pursuant to the Court's August 10, 2023 order in related Feeding Our Future cases. The government proposes that United States v. Abdiaziz Farah et al., 22 CR 124 (NEB/TNL), go to trial first on April 1, 2024, and that United States v. Aimee Bock et al. begin on June 10, 2024. It states that some defendants request January 8, 2024 for the Farah trial. It proposes pretrial filing deadlines such as expert disclosure 45 days before trial, and status hearings on January 17, 2024 and May 3, 2024 for the other cases. The signature block names Andrew M. Luger, United States Attorney, with /s/ Harry M. Jacobs.

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

        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 167 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 3

                                                 U.S. Department of Justice

                                                 United States Attorney
                                                 District of Minnesota
                                                600 United States Courthouse   Telephone: (612) 664-5600
                                                300 South Fourth Street              Fax: (612) 664-5787
                                                Minneapolis, MN 55415


                                                 August 31, 2023

Honorable Nancy E. Brasel
United States District Court Judge

      Re:    United States v. Abdiaziz Farah et al., 22 CR 124 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Aimee Bock et al., 22 CR 223 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Qamar Hassan et al., 22 CR 224 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Liban Alishire et al., 22 CR 222 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Sharmarke Jama et al., 22 CR 225 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Haji Salad et al., 22 CR 226 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Mekfira Hussein et al., 22 CR 277 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Mohamed Noor, 22 CR 293 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Ayan Abukar, 23 CR 80 (NEB/TNL)
             United States v. Sharon Ross, 23 CR 82 (NEB/TNL)

Dear Chambers:

       Pursuant to the Court’s August 10, 2023 order, the government has met and conferred
with defense counsel in the above-captioned cases, each of which relates to the Feeding Our
Future fraud scheme. The government has reached out to approximately fifty defense
counsel. As to some issues, the government and the majority of defense counsel are in
agreement. Perhaps unsurprisingly, total agreement could not be reached.

        Defense counsel have requested a range of trial start dates, from January 2024 to
December 2024. Some defense counsel disagree with the government’s proposed trial plan
but have not made a counterproposal. Other counsel have not responded to the government.
That said, the government urges the Court to adopt the below proposal, which provides for
trials to proceed in an orderly manner designed to give counsel sufficient time to prepare,
while also pushing the cases ahead to trial. The government believes this plan is agreeable
to the majority of defense counsel.

      The government believes that the largest cases should be tried first. In the
government’s experience, trying the largest case first is the most efficient way to manage
numerous related cases, and also means that the largest number of defendants will proceed
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 167 Filed 08/31/23 Page 2 of 3



                                                                               August 31, 2023
                                                                                       Page 2

to trial first. (It is also the government’s experience that the results of the first trial will
inform plea negotiations and potential resolutions for the remaining defendants.)

       The two largest cases are United States v. Abdiaziz Farah et al., 22 CR 124 (NEB/TNL)
and United States v. Aimee Bock et al., 22 CR 223 (NEB/TNL). The government proposes that
the first case to proceed to trial is United States v. Abdiaziz Farah et al., 22 CR 124
(NEB/TNL), and that trial should be scheduled to begin on April 1, 2024. The government
encourages the Court to make this a “hard” trial date that all parties should expect will not
be moved.

        Counsel in that case agree that the Farah trial should be the first of the related cases
to proceed to trial, but they have not reached an agreement as to when trial should begin.
Defendants Abdimajid Nur, Said Farah, Abdiwahab Aftin, Mukhtar Sharif, and Hayat Nur
join in the government in requesting an April 1 trial date (and detailed their own concerns
about an earlier trial date in their submission to the Court). Defendants Abdiaziz Farah,
Mohamed Ismail, and Mahad Ibrahim request that trial be scheduled on January 8, 2024.
The government expects trial to last 3 to 4 weeks.

        The parties generally agree that the second case to proceed to trial should be United
States v. Aimee Bock et al., 22 CR 223 (NEB/TNL). The government proposes that trial begin
on June 10, 2024, which provides the defense with more than nine months from today’s date
(a total of 21 months after indictment) to prepare for trial. Defendants request that trial
begin in Fall 2024, without specifying a proposed date. The government anticipates that trial
will last 3 to 4 weeks.

          With respect to pretrial filings, the government proposes the following dates for the
trials.
           Expert disclosure 45 days before trial
               o Rebuttal experts 30 days before trial
           Govt witness and exhibit lists 30 days before trial
               o Defense witness and exhibit lists 14 days before trial
           Motions in limine, trial briefs, jury instructions 21 days before trial
               o Motion in limine responses 14 days before trial

While there is not a major disagreement, some defense counsel will likely propose their own
alternative schedule for trial filings. All parties understand that the Court will set these
deadlines.

       With respect to the other cases, the government requests that the Court not schedule
trial dates yet. Many defense counsel are in agreement with this proposal. Instead, the
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-TNL Doc. 167 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 3



                                                                              August 31, 2023
                                                                                      Page 3

government proposes that the Court schedule status hearings on January 17, 2024, and May
3, 2024, following the trial of the first of the Feeding Our Future cases. At that time, the
parties will be in a more realistic posture to say whether and when these cases should be set
for trial while still leaving sufficient time for all parties to prepare for trial once the Court
sets a date. If the Court does set placeholder dates for the remainder of the cases beginning
in the Summer or Fall of 2024, the government respectfully requests that the Court hold
status hearings in January and May to discuss whether the cases will in fact proceed to trial
and set revised trial dates that work for the Court and the parties, as needed.

       The Court previously scheduled trial in United States v. Sharon Ross, 23 CR 82
(NEB/TNL) for January 22, 2024. Because Ross involves a single defendant and was the last
case charged among all of the related cases, and for all of the above reasons, the government
does not believe the Ross case should proceed to trial before the other cases. For his part,
defense counsel Earl Gray indicated that he would prefer to hold this trial date and try Ross
before the other related cases.




                                                    Sincerely,

                                                    ANDREW M. LUGER
                                                    United States Attorney

                                                     /s/ Harry M. Jacobs
                                            BY:     JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
                                                    MATTHEW S. EBERT
                                                    HARRY M. JACOBS
                                                    CHELSEA A. WALCKER
                                                    Assistant U.S. Attorneys


File and source

File

167.pdf

Size

185,730 bytes

SHA-256

e3c851648849e953aa0743aac6ba900a96e744ff83077bc440d0746dfe26bd5c

Our copy

167.pdf

Original

archive.org