Court filing — United States v. Ahmed Mohamed Artan (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 670, D. Minn.)

Summary

Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations filed June 12, 2025 as Doc. 670 in United States of America v. Ahmed Mohamed Artan, Criminal No. 22-223(8) (NEB/DTS), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Artan agrees to plead guilty to Count 3 of the Indictment, wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and the United States agrees to move to dismiss the remaining charges against him. The factual basis states that from in or about October 2020 through in or about January 2022 Artan knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the federal child nutrition program, using Stigma-Free International to open sites. The stipulations state a Guidelines range of 33 to 41 months if the adjusted offense level is 20 and the criminal history category is I, and restitution of not greater than $666,422 and not less than $250,000.

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 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 Filed 06/12/25 Pagei1of13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Criminal No. 22-223(8) (NEB/DTS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, PLEA AGREEMENT AND

SENTENCING STIPULATIONS
v.

AHMED MOHAMED ARTAN,
Defendant.

The United States of America and the defendant Ahmed Mohamed Artan agree
to resolve this case on the terms and conditions that follow. This plea agreement binds
only the defendant and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Minnesota. This agreement does not bind any other United States Attorney’s Office
or any other federal or state agency.

1. Charges. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count 3 of the
Indictment, which charges the defendant with wire fraud, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343. The defendant fully understands the nature and
elements of the crimes with which he has been charged. At the time of sentencing,
the United States agrees to move to dismiss the remaining charges against him in
the Indictment.

2. Factual Basis. The defendant is pleading guilty because he is in fact

guilty of Count 3 of the Indictment. In pleading guilty, the defendant admits the
following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and

constitute relevant conduct pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines:
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 Filed 06/12/25 Page 2of13

From in or about October 2020 through in or about January 2022, defendant
Ahmed Mohamed Artan knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the federal
child nutrition program, a program designed to provide free meals to children in need.
The defendant and his co-conspirators obtained, misappropriated, and laundered
millions of dollars in program funds that were intended as reimbursements for the
cost of serving meals to children. The defendants exploited changes in the program
intended to ensure underserved children received adequate nutrition during the
Covid-19 pandemic. Rather than feed children, the defendants took advantage of the
Covid-19 pandemic—and the resulting program changes—to enrich themselves by
fraudulently misappropriating millions of dollars in federal child nutrition program
funds.

In October 2020, shortly after the Minnesota Department of Education
announced that it was no longer approving food sites run by restaurants and other
for-profit companies, defendant Artan acquired a non-profit entity, Stigma-Free
International, for use in carrying out the scheme. Artan and his co-conspirators used
Stigma-Free International to open a number of new Federal Child Nutrition Program
sites around the state of Minnesota, including in Willmar, Mankato, St. Cloud, Waite
Park, and St. Paul. At the same time, other conspirators created additional shell
companies to serve as meal vendor companies purporting to provide the meals to be
served to children at these Stigma-Free International sites. Together, the defendants

claimed to be serving meals to tens of thousands of children each day throughout the
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 Filed 06/12/25 Page3of13

state of Minnesota, for which they fraudulently claimed and received millions of
dollars in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds.

Over the 12-month period from November 2020 to November 2021, defendant
Artan and his co-conspirators fraudulently claimed to have served nearly 5 million
meals to children at the Stigma-Free International sites. In support of these claims,
they prepared and submitted fraudulent meal count sheets and invoices. The
conspirators also submitted fake attendance rosters purporting to list the names of
children who received food at the Stigma-Free International sites. The rosters were
fraudulent and the names on them fake.

Defendant Artan and his co-conspirators created a company called Olive
Management Inc. that purported to operate a federal child nutrition program site in
St. Cloud, Minnesota. The Olive Management site fraudulently claimed to have
served meals to 3,000 children a day, seven days a week, at a small storefront deli
located in a strip mallin St. Cloud. During the 12-month period from September 2020
to September 2021, the defendant and his co-conspirators fraudulently claimed to
have served more than 1.6 million meals to children at the Olive Management site.
In support of these claims, the defendants prepared and submitted fraudulent meal
count sheets and invoices. In support of their fraudulent claims, the defendants also
submitted a fake attendance roster purporting to list the names of 2,040 children who
attended the Olive Management site’s “after-school program.” The roster was

fraudulent and the names on it were fake.
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 Filed 06/12/25 Page4of13

The defendant and co-conspirators also created another company called
Optimum Community Services for use in carrying out the fraud scheme. Optimum
Community Services purported to have food distribution sites in Golden Valley and
Waite Park, at which they claimed—fraudulently—to have served nearly 700,000
meals to children between March and December 2021. Based on these fraudulent
claims for Optimum Community Services, the defendant and his co-conspirators
caused a loss of approximately $1,682,664 in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds.

In furtherance of the scheme, the defendant and other co-conspirators created
a shell company called Five A’s Projects LLC to receive and launder the proceeds of
the fraud scheme. The defendant and other co-conspirators together transferred more
than $1 million in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds to Five A’s Projects LLC.
On October 22, 2021, the defendants used these funds to purchase the former location
of Kelly's 19th Hole, a bar and restaurant in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, for
approximately $1 million, of which defendant Artan contributed approximately
$60,000.

Finally, as alleged in Count 8 of the indictment, on or about October 8, 2020,
in furtherance of this scheme, defendant Artan received an email from co-conspirator
Abdi Nur Salah containing resignation letters and board minutes announcing the
appointment of defendant Artan as president of Stigma-Free International. The
email traveled through servers located outside the state of Minnesota.

3. Waiver of Pretrial Motions. The defendant understands and agrees

that he has certain rights to file pre-trial motions in this case. As part of the plea
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 Filed 06/12/25 Page5of13

agreement, and based upon concessions of the United States within this plea
agreement, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily gives up the right to
file any pre-trial motions in this case. The defendant agrees that, by pleading guilty,
he is withdrawing any motions previously filed.

4. Waiver of Constitutional Trial Rights. The defendant understands

that he has the right to go to trial. At trial, the defendant would be presumed
innocent, have the right to trial by jury or, with the consent of the United States and
of the Court, to trial by the Court, the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses to
testify for the defense, the right to testify and present evidence, and the right to be
protected from compelled self-incrimination. The defendant understands that he has
the right to an attorney at every stage of these proceedings and, if necessary, one will
be appointed to represent him. The defendant understands that he has the right to
persist in a plea of not guilty and, if he does so, he would have the right to a public
and speedy trial. By pleading guilty, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and
voluntarily waives each of these trial rights, except the right to counsel. The
defendant understands that a guilty plea is a complete and final admission of guilt
and, if the Court accepts the guilty plea, the Court will adjudge the defendant guilty
without a trial.

5. Additional Consequences. The defendant understands that as a

result of his conviction, he could experience additional consequences, such as the loss

of the right to carry firearms, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670- Filed 06/12/25 Page6of13

6. Statutory Penalties. The defendant understands that wire fraud, as

charged in Count 3 of the Indictment, carries statutory penalties of:

a. a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years in prison;
b. a supervised release term of up to three years;
C. a fine of up to $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss from the

offense, whichever is greater;

d. assessment to the defendant of the costs of prosecution as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1918(b) and 1920; and

e. a mandatory special assessment of $100 under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3013(a)(2)(A).

7. Revocation of Supervised Release. The defendant understands that

if he were to violate any supervised release condition while on supervised release, the
Court could revoke his supervised release, and the defendant could be sentenced to
an additional term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(8). See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.4, 7B1.5. The defendant also understands
that as part of any revocation, the Court may include a requirement that he be placed
on an additional term of supervised release after imprisonment, as set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3583(h).

8. Guidelines Calculations. The parties acknowledge that the defendant

will be sentenced in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3551, et seq. Nothing in this plea
agreement should be construed to limit the parties from presenting any and all
relevant evidence to the Court at sentencing. The parties also acknowledge that the
Court will consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines in determining the

appropriate sentence and stipulate to the following guideline calculations:
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 Filed 06/12/25 Page/7of13

a. Base Offense Level. The parties agree that the base offense level
for wire fraud is 7. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1).

b. Specific Offense Characteristics. The parties agree that the
offense level is increased by 16 levels because the loss is more
than $1.5 million, but not more than $8.5 million. U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(). The parties agree that the offense level is
increased by 2 levels because the defendant purported to be acting
on behalf of an educational or charitable organization. U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(9)(A). The parties agree that the offense level should
be increased by 2 levels because the offense involved conduct
described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040 (Fraud in Connection with a Major
Disaster or Emergency Benefits). The parties agree that no other
specific offense adjustments apply.

C. Chapter 3 Adjustments. The parties agree that the offense level
is decreased 2 levels because the defendant was a minor
participant in the criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). The
parties agree that no other Chapter 3 Adjustments apply.

d. Acceptance of Responsibility. The government agrees to
recommend that the defendant receive a 2-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). As
the defendant has timely notified the government of his intention
to enter a plea of guilty, the government agrees to recommend
that the defendant receive an additional 1-level reduction
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). Whether these reductions will be
imposed shall be determined by the Court in its discretion.
However, the defendant understands and agrees that the
government's recommendations are conditioned upon the
following: (1) the defendant testifies truthfully during the change
of plea and sentencing hearings; (2) the defendant provides full,
complete and truthful information to the United States Probation
Office in the pre-sentence investigation; and (8) the defendant
engages in no conduct inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility before the time of sentencing, including frivolously
denying facts in the Presentence Report. Nothing in this
agreement limits the right of the government, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and/or § 3C1.1 to seek denial of a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility or an enhancement for obstruction of
justice should the defendant engage in any conduct inconsistent
with acceptance of responsibility, including moving to withdraw
his guilty plea after it is entered.
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 Filed 06/12/25 Page 8of13

e. Criminal History Category. The parties believe that, at the time
of sentencing, the defendant will fall into Criminal History
Category I. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. This does not constitute a
stipulation, but a belief based on an assessment of the
information currently known. The defendant’s actual criminal
history and related status will be determined by the Court based
on the information presented in the Presentence Report and by
the parties at the time of sentencing. The defendant understands
that if the presentence investigation reveals any prior adult or
juvenile sentence which should be included within his criminal
history under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant will
be sentenced based on his true criminal history category, and he

will not be permitted to withdraw from this Plea Agreement.
U.S.8.G. § 4A1.1.

f. Zero-Point Offender Adjustment. Because the defendant has zero
criminal-history points and no disqualifying conduct, the parties
agree the defendant qualifies for a 2-level adjustment under

U.S.S.G. § 401.1.

g, Guidelines Range. If the adjusted offense level is 20, and the
criminal history category is I, the Sentencing Guidelines range is
33 to 41 months of imprisonment.

h. Fine Range. If the adjusted offense level is 20, the Sentencing
Guidelines fine range is $15,000 to $150,000. U.S.S.G.
§ 5E1.2(c)(8).

1. Supervised Release. The Sentencing Guidelines call for a term of .
supervised release of between one and three years. U.S.S.G.

§ 5D1.2(a)(2).

9. Discretion of the Court. The foregoing stipulations are binding on

the parties, but do not bind the Court. The parties understand that the Sentencing
Guidelines are advisory and their application is a matter that falls solely within the
Court’s discretion. The Court may make its own determination regarding the
applicable guideline factors and the applicable criminal history category. The Court
may also depart from the applicable Guidelines. If the Court determines that the

applicable guideline calculations or the defendant’s criminal history category are

8
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670- Filed 06/12/25 Page9of13

different from that stated above, such a determination shall not provide a basis for
the parties to withdraw from this agreement, and the defendant will be sentenced
pursuant to the Court’s determinations.

10. Agreements as to Sentencing Recommendation. The parties are

free to recommend whatever sentence they deem appropriate. The parties reserve the
right to make a motion for departures from the applicable Guidelines range pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to oppose any such motion made by the opposing party, and to
argue for a sentence outside the applicable Guidelines range. If the Court does not
accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, the defendant will have no right
to withdraw his guilty plea.

11. Special Assessment. The Sentencing Guidelines require payment of a

special assessment in the amount of $100 for each felony count of which the defendant
is convicted. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.8. The defendant agrees that the special assessment is

due and payable at the time of sentencing.

12. Restitution Agreement. The defendant understands and agrees that -

the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, applies and that the Court
is required to order the defendant to make restitution to the victims of his crime. The
defendant understands and agrees the Court may order the defendant to make
restitution to any victim of the scheme regardless of whether the victim was named
in the Indictment. The parties agrees that the defendant owes restitution in an

amount not greater than of $666,422, and not less than $250,000.
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 _ Filed 06/12/25 Page10of13

13. Disclosure of Assets. The defendant will fully and completely disclose
to the United States Attorney’s Office the existence and location of any assets in
which the Defendant has any right, title, or interest, or over which the defendant
exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those assets held by a spouse,
nominee or other third party, or any business owned or controlled by the defendant.
The defendant agrees to assist the United States in identifying, locating, returning,
and transferring assets for use in payment of fines and/or forfeiture ordered by the
Court. The Defendant agrees to complete a financial statement within two weeks of
the entry of his guilty plea. The defendant further agrees to execute any releases that
may be necessary for the United States to obtain information concerning the
defendant’s assets and expressly authorizes the United States to obtain a credit
report on the defendant to evaluate his ability to satisfy financial obligations imposed
by the Court. If requested by the United States, the defendant agrees to submit to
one or more asset interviews or depositions under oath.

14. Forfeiture. The defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), all property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to wire fraud, as
charged in the Indictment, including but not limited to the real property located at
8432 Noble Avenue, North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, known previously as Kelly’s
19th Hole.

The defendant admits that this property is subject to forfeiture because it

constitutes or is traceable to the wire fraud scheme alleged in the Indictment.

10
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS_ Doc.670_ Filed 06/12/25 Page 11 of 13

The Defendant gonsents to the entry of a money judgment forfeiture in thee an

not sd Wx Cle andl not less thon £ ASO, orm,
amount pot $666,422 pvhich represents the amount of proceeds he obtained from the

wire fraud scheme alleged in the Indictment. The defendant will receive a credit
against the money judgment forfeiture for the net value of all property that is
forfeited from him in this matter. The United States reserves the right to seek
forfeiture of substitute assets and any additional directly forfeitable property.

15. Waivers of Appeal and Collateral Attack. The parties hereby waive

the right to appeal any non-jurisdictional issues. This appeal waiver includes, but is
not limited to: the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal guilt or innocence, any
issues relating to the negotiation, taking or acceptance of the guilty plea, the sentence
imposed or any issues that relate to the calculation of the Guidelines range, the
supervised-release term and conditions imposed, any restitution obligations, and the
constitutionality of the statutes to which the defendant is pleading guilty. The
parties agree, however, that excluded from this waiver is an appeal by defendant of
the substantive reasonableness of a term of imprisonment above the top of the
Guidelines range, and an appeal by the government of the substantive
reasonableness of a term of imprisonment below the bottom of the Guidelines range.

The defendant also waives the right to collaterally attack his conviction and
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except based upon a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. This collateral-review waiver does not operate to waive a collateral
challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on new legal principles enunciated in

Supreme Court case law decided after the date of this Plea Agreement that are both

11
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 _ Filed 06/12/25 Page12of13

substantive and have retroactive effect. For purposes of this provision, legal
principles that are substantive and retroactive are those that narrow the reach of the
offense of conviction and render the defendant’s conduct non-criminal or that render
the sentence imposed illegal.

16. The defendant has discussed these rights with the defendant’s attorney.
The defendant understands the rights being waived, and the defendant waives these
rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

17. FOIA Requests. The defendant waives all rights to obtain, directly or

through others, information about the investigation and prosecution of this case
under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552,

552A.

18. Complete Agreement. This, along with any agreement signed by the

parties before entry of plea, is the entire agreement and understanding between the
United States and the defendant. By signing this plea agreement, the defendant
acknowledges: (a) that the defendant has read the entire agreement and has reviewed
every part of it with the defendant’s counsel; (b) that the defendant fully understands
this plea agreement; (c) that no promises, agreements, understandings, or conditions
have been made or entered into in connection with her decision to plead guilty, except
those set forth in this plea agreement; (d) that the defendant is satisfied with the
legal services and representation provided by defense counsel in connection with this

plea agreement and matters related to it; (e) that the defendant has entered into this

12
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.670 _ Filed 06/12/25 Page13of13

plea agreement freely, voluntarily, and knowingly; and (f) that the defendant’s
decision to plead guilty in accord with the terms and conditions of this plea agreement
is made of the defendant’s own free will.

Dated: JOSEPH H. THOMPSON

ly | { 2| 203257 Acting United States Attorney

BY: MATTHEW S’EBERT
HARRY M. JACOBS
DANIEL W. BOBIER
Assistant United States Attorneys

AHMED ARTAN
Defendant

Counsel for Defendant

13


File and source

File

670.pdf

Size

847,901 bytes

SHA-256

0932bdc51ebe692d1a476ed1609a95f9c1a0c415d25dfff70e50b87aabd633db

Our copy

670.pdf

Original

archive.org