Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 553, D. Minn.)

Summary

An Order of Detention, Doc. 553, filed 03/06/25 in Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS, United States of America v. Abdinasir Abshir, Criminal No. 22-cr-223(10) (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The order states that a hearing on the government's motion to revoke pretrial release took place on February 28, 2025, and grants the motion. It recites findings that on February 18, 2025, during the trial of co-defendants Aimee Bock and Salim Said, the defendant approached a cooperating defendant outside the courtroom and tried to intimidate him, and that he missed a mandatory meeting with his pretrial release supervisor. It finds probable cause of a felony committed while on release and clear and convincing evidence of a violation of release conditions, and commits him to the custody of the United States Marshal.

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. 553, 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-553-d-m-d12926fdd3/, SHA-256 428c31a6c3a93be7aa164dd25265022b0ae66f0551cd6ae5d4ee1b972146b3fc.

Full text

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 553 Filed 03/06/25 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Criminal No. 22-cr-223(10) (NEB/DTS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER OF DETENTION
ABDINASIR ABSHIR,

Defendant,

On February 28, 2025, Abdinasir Abshir (“Defendant”) appeared before the

Court for a hearing on the government’s motion for revocation of pretrial release

following his arrest. Defendant was represented by Craig Cascarano. Assistant

United States Attorney Joseph H. Thompson represented the United States. Based

on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth below, the government’s motion

to revoke Defendant’s pretrial release is GRANTED.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant and his co-defendants are charged with orchestrating and

carrying out a scheme to defraud the Federal Child Nutrition Program (“Program”)

out of about $250 million. In particular, Defendant is charged with having opened a

fraudulent food-distribution site, within the Program and under the sponsorship of

Feeding Our Future. Defendant, and his charged co-conspirator and brother, Asad

Abshir, called that site Stigma Free Mankato. Defendant is charged with having

falsely claimed, between November 2020 and November 2021, to have served an

astounding number of meals, more than 1.6 million, at the Stigma-Free Mankato site.
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 553 Filed 03/06/25 Page 2 of 7

Based on these claims, they allegedly received approximately $5 million in Program

funds. For that alleged conduct, Defendant stands charged of wire fraud conspiracy,

wire fraud, conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, federal programs bribery,

money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering.

2. On February 10, 2025, trial commenced against Aimee Bock and Salim

Said—two of the defendant’s charged co-conspirators. Defendant and other

defendants named in the same indictment are scheduled to be tried at later dates.

3. On February 18, 2025, the government presented testimony from Postal

Inspector John Western. During the morning session, Inspector Western testified

about the Stigma Free Willmar site. Just prior to the lunch break, the government

explained that Inspector Western would testify after lunch about the Stigma Free

Mankato site—the site run by Defendant. The government informed defense counsel

that Inspector Western’s testimony would likely last another hour, after which the

government planned to call a cooperating defendant.1

4. After the lunch break, Defendant and another man entered the

courtroom loudly. Based on the timing of Defendant’s arrival in court, it appeared as

though someone had informed him of the testimony related to his fraudulent food

site. Although the gallery was not crowded, they sat in the front row on the far side

of the courtroom closest to the jury box. After sitting down, Defendant and the other

1 The government had previously informed defense counsel of the name of the
cooperating defendant scheduled to testify.

2
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 553 Filed 03/06/25 Page 3 of 7

man were disruptive and noisy. At one point, a court security officer appeared to ask

one of the men to leave. Both men then left the courtroom.

5. During the afternoon break, the attorney representing the cooperating

defendant informed the government that one of the two men—later determined to be

Defendant—had approached his client in the hallway. The cooperating defendant had

been sitting on the bench immediately outside the courtroom, waiting to testify.

Defendant approached the cooperating defendant.

6. According to the cooperating defendant’s later description of the events,

the cooperating defendant recognized Defendant from their prior interactions in the

course of the charged fraud scheme, but he could not recall Defendant’s name. The

cooperating defendant assumed—incorrectly—that Defendant was also waiting to

testify as a trial witness. The cooperating defendant told Defendant that he was

testifying. Defendant then asked the cooperating defendant to step into the bathroom

with him so they could talk. The cooperating defendant felt intimidated and

understood that Defendant was trying to intimidate him. The cooperating defendant

declined to enter the bathroom and returned to the witness room with his lawyer.

Later that day, the cooperating defendant confirmed that a photograph of Defendant

pictured the man who had approached him and tried to intimidate him.

7. The same day that Defendant came to the courthouse and attempted to

intimidate a cooperating witness, Defendant was scheduled to meet—in the same

building—with his pretrial release supervisor. He failed to appear for that mandatory

meeting.

3
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 553 Filed 03/06/25 Page 4 of 7

8. After these events, the government sought to determine Defendant’s

whereabouts. Law enforcement agents went to the apartment that Defendant had

identified as his residence to his pretrial release supervisor. The residents of that

apartment informed law enforcement that they had recently moved in and that

Defendant was not living there.

9. In the investigation that followed, law enforcement determined that

soon after the events on February 18, Defendant ostensibly abandoned his cell phone

and began using, instead, a friend’s phone. He used that friend’s phone when he

eventually reestablished contact with his pretrial release supervisor.

10. On the basis of these and other facts, the government moved pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(a) to revoke Defendant’s pretrial release. The Court held a

hearing on that motion on February 28, 2025.

11. The government argued that Defendant posed a risk of non-appearance

and a danger to the community.

12. Defendant consulted with his counsel prior to the detention hearing and

was represented by counsel at the hearing. Defendant contested the government’s

motion for detention and sought release.

13. The government argued that Defendant had violated the mandatory

terms of his pretrial release, including by speaking with a witness in a related case,

by misrepresenting to his pretrial release supervisor where he was residing, and

committing a crime—namely attempted intimidation of a witness. Such conduct, the

government argued, made clear that Defendant was determined to violate his release

4
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 553 Filed 03/06/25 Page 5 of 7

terms and the law and accordingly no combination of conditions short of detention

could reasonably assure community safety or his future appearance.

14. Defendant argued that release to a halfway house and/or with electronic

monitoring would suffice.

DISCUSSION

The appropriate analysis for deciding the issue of revocation of pretrial release

upon the appearance before a judicial officer of a person charged with an offense is

governed by18 U.S.C. § 3148. Under that statute, the Court “shall enter an order of

revocation and detention if, after a hearing, the judicial officer finds . . .” either

“probable cause to believe that the person has committed a Federal, State, or local

crime while on release”; or “clear and convincing evidence that the person has violated

any other condition of release”; and either:

(1) “. . . there is no condition or combination of conditions of release
that will assure the person will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of
any other person or the community;” or

(2) “the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination
of conditions of release.”

18 U.S.C. § 3148. Furthermore, if there is probable cause that the defendant

committed a felony offense, “a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or

combination of conditions will assure that the person will not pose a danger to the

safety of any other person or the community.” Id.

Based on the proffers made and arguments presented at the hearing, the Court

finds there is probable cause to believe Defendant has committed a felony offense

while on release by attempting to intimidate a government witness and cooperator

5
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 553 Filed 03/06/25 Page 6 of 7

inside the courthouse shortly before that cooperator’s testimony was scheduled to

begin. The Court further finds there is clear and convincing evidence that Defendant’s

conduct also violated the conditions of his release, which expressly ordered that he

“avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any person who is or may be a victim or

witness in the investigation or prosecution, including co-defendants/co-conspirators

under this and all related cases.” Dkt. #67 ¶7(g).

The Court next addresses the issue of Defendant’s detention. The place and

timing of the alleged witness intimidation are notable, occurring mere feet from the

sitting federal judge as she presided over the trial of his co-defendants, and just before

the witness was about to testify.

Like the jury tampering that has been alleged to have occurred in the only

other Feeding Our Future case tried thus far, intimidation of a witness is also a direct

attack on the integrity, efficacy, and reliability of this nation’s judicial system. The

disregard for norms of laws and rules is all the more brazen in the context of the

heightened scrutiny after the jury tampering charges stemming from the previously

tried case.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were amended, in part, to address

the concerns for jury tampering and witness intimidation in the so-called New York

mafia trials that seemed from a distant place and a vestige of a long by-gone era. The

allegations of jury tampering and witness intimidation in the Feeding Our Future

cases, however, affirm that the concerns giving rise to the amended criminal

procedures remain real here today.

6
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 553 Filed 03/06/25 Page 7 of 7

Based on Defendant’s alleged attempt to tamper with and intimidate a

cooperating defendant witness; Defendant’s new criminal charges; Defendant’s

misrepresentation of his residence to his pretrial release supervisor; Defendant’s

demonstrated unlikelihood of abiding by any condition or combination of conditions

of release that this Court could fashion; and the record before the Court, no condition

or combination of conditions would reasonably address the issue of public safety or

the reappearance of Defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(A) and (B).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion of the United States for revocation of the pretrial release of

Abdinasir Abshir is granted;

2. Mr. Abshir is committed to the custody of the United States Marshal;

3. Mr. Abshir shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to consult privately

with his lawyer; and

4. Upon Order of the Court or request by the United States Attorney, the

person in charge of the corrections facility in which Mr. Abshir is confined shall

deliver him to the United States Marshal for the purpose of appearance in connection

with a Court proceeding.

Dated: March 5, 2025___ s/ Tony N. Leung________________
The Honorable Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge

File and source

File: 553.pdf
Size: 102,861 bytes
SHA-256: 428c31a6c3a93be7aa164dd25265022b0ae66f0551cd6ae5d4ee1b972146b3fc
Our copy: 553.pdf
Original: archive.org