Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 431, D. Minn.)

Summary

Defendant Abdulkadir Nur Salah's Motion in Limine No. 9 re Evidence of Other Conspiracies, Doc. 431, filed 01/10/25 in Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS, United States of America v. Abdulkadir Nur Salah, Case No. 22-CR-223(4)(NEB/DTS), in the District of Minnesota. Salah asks the Court to preclude the government from introducing evidence of other conspiracies not charged in the indictment, including evidence relating to other food distribution sites not referenced in it. He argues that the indictment charges a single conspiracy, that evidence of other conspiracies risks a prejudicial variance, and that Aimee Bock's presence among the defendants creates a particular risk of spillover. He points to government exhibits on the SIR Boxing site, the Feeding Our Future Arcade / Taylor site, the Lido site, the Great Lakes site and the Shamsia Hopes site. The motion is dated January 10, 2025.

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

Cite this document

“Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 431, D. Minn.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-bock-et-al-feeding-our-future-dkt-431-d-m-80eaee151b/, SHA-256 334c3f82db0a17d5844e1ebdfc2b2d448de95ed4d874da32bcb1ed61ebbb6f90.

Full text

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 431 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 22-CR-223(4)(NEB/DTS)

Plaintiff,

v. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 RE
EVIDENCE OF OTHER
4. ABDULKADIR NUR SALAH, CONSPIRACIES

Defendant.

Defendant Abdulkadir Nur Salah requests an order precluding the government

from introducing evidence of other conspiracies not charged in the indictment in this

case, including evidence relating to other food distribution sites not referenced in the

indictment.

The Indictment in this case charges the Defendants with participation in a single

conspiracy, to submit fraudulent claims in order to receive federal funds intended to

support the distribution of meals to eligible children through the Federal Child Nutrition

Program. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 22. “When a single conspiracy is alleged in an indictment, but

the proof at trial shows multiple conspiracies, there is a variance.” United States v.

Jones, 880 F.2d 55, 66 (8th Cir. 1989). A variance can constitute grounds for reversal of

a conviction where it “infringe[s] a defendant's substantial rights.” United States v.

Ghant, 339 F.3d 660, 662 (8th Cir. 2003). Such an infringement can occur where “the

defendant was prejudiced by a ‘spillover’ of evidence from one conspiracy to another.”

Jones, 880 F.2d at 66 (citing United States v. George, 752 F.2d 749, 754 (1st Cir. 1985);
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 431 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 3

United States v. Scott, 511 F.2d 15, 19–20 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Calabro, 467

F.2d 973, 983 (2d Cir. 1972)); see also Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 769, 66

S. Ct. 1239, 1250, 90 L. Ed. 1557 (1946) (reversing convictions where evidence at trial

proved eight separate conspiracies, citing risk that evidence and instructions “confuse[d]

the common purpose of a single enterprise with the several, though similar, purposes of

numerous separate adventures of like character”).

This case poses a unique risk of prejudicial spillover because among the

defendants is Aimee Bock, Feeding Our Future’s Executive Director. Feeding Our

Future sponsored the participation of numerous entities in the Federal Child Nutrition

Program, many of which are not mentioned in the Indictment in this case, and which have

no connection to Defendant Salah.

The government’s exhibit list includes numerous exhibits relating to such sites.

The government’s list includes, for example, 12 exhibits relating to the “SIR Boxing

Site,” which is not referenced in the indictment. See Gov’t List, P-1 through P-12. It

also includes nine exhibits relating to the “Feeding Our Future Arcade / Taylor” site,

which is similarly not referenced in the indictment. See Gov’t List, P-60, P-61, P-70

through P-76. The same is true of the seven exhibits associated with the Lido / “SAFE

Somali America Faribault Education” site (Q-40 through Q-46), the six exhibits

associated with the “Great Lakes” site (Q-51 through Q-56), and the nine exhibits

associated with the Shamsia Hopes site (Q-60 through Q-68).

To the extent the government seeks to offer those exhibits, or testimony about

those sites, they would relate to one or more conspiracies different from the one with

2
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 431 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 3

which Defendant Salah is charged. The risk that this evidence will create prejudicial

spillover that infringes Defendant Salah’s substantial rights increases with the number of

other conspiracies to which the evidence adduced at trial relates. See Ghant, 339 F.3d at

663 (“Both the number of conspiracies putatively proven and the number of defendants

involved are crucial to determining whether a variance is prejudicial.”) (citation omitted).

To avoid this risk of prejudice, and the attendant risk of an impermissible variance

from the indictment in this case, the Court should issue an order precluding the

government from introducing evidence relating to food distribution sites that are not

referenced in the Indictment.

Dated: January 10, 2025 GREENE ESPEL PLLP

s/ Surya Saxena
Surya Saxena, Reg. No. 0339465
Nicholas Scheiner, Reg. No. 0402470
222 S. Ninth Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
ssaxena@greeneespel.com
nscheiner@greeneespel.com
(612) 373-0830

Attorneys for Defendant Abdulkadir Nur Salah

File and source

File: 431.pdf
Size: 182,026 bytes
SHA-256: 334c3f82db0a17d5844e1ebdfc2b2d448de95ed4d874da32bcb1ed61ebbb6f90
Our copy: 431.pdf
Original: archive.org