Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Government's Motion to Continue Trial (Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed) — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 814, D. Minn.)

Summary

A Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Government's Motion to Continue Trial, Doc. 814, filed March 16, 2026 in United States of America v. Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed, Criminal No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The defendant argues that the government has not shown good cause to continue the trial set for June 8, 2026, because both of its trials were set long ago and back-to-back trials are not good cause. It argues that staffing changes tied to Operation Metro Surge do not change the analysis and that the Court should take the U.S. Attorney at his word that the office has more than adequate staffing. The signature block names Dane DeKrey of RINGSTROM DEKREY PLLP.

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-DTS     Doc. 814     Filed 03/16/26   Page 1 of 10




                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

                          Criminal No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/DTS)

    United States of America,

                            Plaintiff,
                                                     Memorandum of Law in
    vs.                                             Opposition to Government’s
                                                     Motion to Continue Trial
    Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed,

                            Defendant.


                                    INTRODUCTION

           The government seeks to continue Mr. Ahmed’s case because it has two trials

in quick succession. But both cases are years old, and at least with respect to Abdi’s,

the government has long known it would go to trial. Respectfully, if the government

wields its awesome power to charge, it must accept the consequences that flow from

it. And any staffing challenges related to Operation Metro Surge should not change

the analysis, particularly given the recent comments by the U.S. Attorney that his

office “ha[s] more than adequate staffing to carry out the fraud (investigations).” 1

The Court should therefore take Mr. Rosen at his word and deny the motion.


1
  Eric Rasmussen, New court filing renews question of ‘adequate’ staffing of prosecutors
to fight fraud, KSTP EYEWITNESS NEWS (Mar. 9, 2026).
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 814    Filed 03/16/26   Page 2 of 10




                                    BACKGROUND

         1) The posture of Abdi’s case.

         In September 2022, the government charged Abdi and 14 others with various

fraud-related crimes. 2 Since then, everyone except Abdi has either pleaded guilty or

lost at trial. 3 Despite this, Abdi has maintained his innocence and insists on going to

trial. This insistence is at least partially the reason why Abdi parted ways with his

previous counsel.4 In short, from day one, Abdi has made it clear to everyone

involved in this case that he wants his trial. So after several continuances, and after

Abdi’s current counsel got up to speed on the case, the Court in January 2026 set

the “date certain” for trial as June 8, 2026. 5 Meaning at the time it filed this motion,

the government had known about the June 8th trial date for 53 days.

         2) The posture of the Mohamed case.

         In January 2024, the government charged seven people with various fraud-



2
    Doc. 1.

3
    Docs. 183, 494, 495, 541, 560, 579, 585, 669, 684, 736, 750.

4
    Docs. 660, 674.

5
 Doc. 790. In its motion, the government stated that “[o]n March 27, 2024, the
Court set Mr. Ahmed’s trial to begin on June 8, 2026.” Doc. 808 at 2. While Abdi
wishes this were true, as it would strengthen his opposition to the motion, it is not.
The Court set the June 8th trial date on January 16, 2026. See Doc. 790.

                                                                                        2
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 814       Filed 03/16/26   Page 3 of 10




related crimes. 6 After several continuances, the Court in July 2025 entered an order

setting the “date certain” for trial as April 20, 2026. 7 Meaning at the time it filed

this motion, the government had known about the April 20th trial date for 245 days.

         3) Operation Metro Surge.

         Finally, the government has seen a significant shakeup in staffing due to the

overreach of Operation Metro Surge. This need not be recounted here, other than

to note that several prosecutors who worked on Abdi’s case—and all Feeding Our

Future cases—left the U.S. Attorney’s Office in January 2026. Contrary to the

government’s brief, their departures came before the Court’s January 16th “date

certain” order.8 Meaning the Court knew the U.S. Attorney’s Office was down

these prosecutors when it made Abdi’s June 8th trial a “date certain.”

                                     *     *        *



6
    24-cr-15, Doc. 1.

7
    Id., Doc. 169.

8
  Joe Thompson and the other prosecutors who led the Feeding Our Futures cases
resigned on January 13th. See Ernesto Londoño, Six Prosecutors Quit Over Push to
Investigate ICE Shooting Victim’s Widow, N.Y. TIMES, (Jan. 13, 2026). Thus making
the government’s claim that the departures occurred after the Court’s January 16th
“date certain” order false. See Doc. 808 at 2 (“Additionally, there have been
significant staffing changes in the United States Attorney’s Office since the January
16 trial order, including the departure of four attorneys who had previously been
involved in this and the related Feeding Our Future cases.”) (emphasis).

                                                                                        3
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 814   Filed 03/16/26   Page 4 of 10




          Given that Abdi’s trial date and the Mohamed trial date will require the

government to try the cases back-to-back, it moved to continue Abdi’s trial. The

parties conferred and, staying true to his desire to have his day in court, Abdi

objected and asked for time to file a memorandum of law in opposition to the

government’s request. The Court agreed. This follows.

                                  LEGAL STANDARD

          In this District, “the party who seeks a continuance must show good cause.” 9

Because “‘good cause’ is case-by-case and subject to the discretion of the district

courts,” it has “no concrete definition but is analyzed by a number of factors[:]”

          (1) the possibility of prejudice to the defendant, (2) the length of the
          delay and the potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason
          for the delay, including whether the delay was within the party’s
          reasonable control, and (4) whether the party acted in good faith. 10

          Whether “good cause” exists “hinges to a large extent on diligence, or lack

thereof, of the moving party.”11 “Put succinctly, absent diligence, there is no ‘good



9
     D. Minn. L.R. 6.1(a).

 In re CenturyLink Sales Pracs. & Sec. Litig., 2019 WL 4082945, at *2 (D. Minn.
10

Aug. 29, 2019).

11
  Pictorial Offset, Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2016 WL 11653460, at *1 n.1 (D.N.J.
May 24, 2016). While Abdi cites to Pictorial Offset and several other out-of-District
cases, such citation is appropriate if it is relevant and persuasive. See White v. Nat’l


                                                                                      4
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS      Doc. 814    Filed 03/16/26   Page 5 of 10




cause.’”12 Examples of a lack of due diligence include failing to subpoena a material

witness when the government knew trial was imminent and failing to determine in

advance whether a party’s testimony was necessary at a hearing. 13 Conversely, “if

good cause exists—e.g. if the [government’s] unpreparedness is not due to a lack of

diligence— . . . the continuance [should be] granted.” 14

            Lastly, otherwise “good cause” for a continuance can be defeated if the party

seeking it makes the request with unclean hands. “[I]t is a well-trodden maxim that

he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” 15 To “prevail on an unclear

hands defense, . . . a defendant must show that (1) the plaintiff’s wrongdoing is

directly related to the claim, and (2) the defendant was personally injured by the



Football League, 756 F.3d 585, 594–95 (8th Cir. 2014) (court may apply opinions from
other jurisdictions “insofar as they have persuasive value.”).

12
     Id.

13
  See, e.g., Cunningham v. Mun. Ct., 62 Cal. App. 3d 153, 156 (Ct. App. 1976) (“In
this case, the People knew before their material witness left on his vacation that if he
were permitted to do so he would then possibly be unavailable as a witness at the trial
on April 5”); Birdwell v. Skeen, 983 F.2d 1332, 1340 (5th Cir. 1993) (“A continuance
which is granted to allow a party to ascertain whether testimony is necessary for a
dismissal hearing is not based upon good cause when the party requesting the
continuance could have made that determination prior to the hearing by using
reasonable diligence”).

14
     Birdwell, 983 F.2d at 1340 n.23.

15
     United States v. Madison, 2025 WL 3623726, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2025).

                                                                                        5
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS     Doc. 814    Filed 03/16/26   Page 6 of 10




wrongdoing.”16 Courts “require the connection between the unclean-hands

conduct and the matter in litigation to be very close.” 17 When the plaintiff is the

government, however, it “is presumed to come into court with clean hands and is

entitled to the equitable relief it [seeks] unless it did something which in good

conscience it should not have done, or failed to do something fair dealing required it

to do.”18

                                      DISCUSSION

            Against this backdrop, for three reasons, Abdi believes the government’s

continuance request lacks the requisite “good cause” to be granted.

            1) Back-to-back trials in cases everyone knew were going to trial is
               not “good cause” for a continuance.

            The first and most compelling reason why “good cause” doesn’t exist for the

government’s continuance request is how old the two cases at issue are, and how

long the government has known they were set for trial. Abdi’s case has been set for

trial on June 8th for 53 days. The Mohamed trial has been set for trial on April 20th

for 245 days. This is more than enough time for the government—the largest and



16
     Id.

17
     Id.

18
     Id.

                                                                                      6
        CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 814    Filed 03/16/26   Page 7 of 10




most powerful criminal law firm in the world—to prepare itself for successive trials.

That it has failed to do so should not now be a cost borne by Abdi. As noted above,

if the government makes the awesome decision to charge a person with a federal

crime, then it should also accept everything that comes with it—including the

possibility of back-to-back trials. To now claim a lack of preparedness for trials in

cases that began in 2022 and 2024, respectively, is the same lack of diligence that

other courts have found do not constitute “good cause” for a continuance. 19

Because diligence by the government here is “absent, . . . there is no ‘good cause’”

justifying its motion to continue Abdi’s trial. 20 The Court should deny it.

         2) Operation Metro Surge doesn’t change the analysis.

         The government’s rebuttal to Abdi’s claim that it lacked diligence in

preparing for back-to-back trials is spelled out in its continuance motion:

         Additionally, there have been significant staffing changes in the United
         States Attorney’s Office since the January 16 trial order, including the
         departure of four attorneys who had previously been involved in this
         and the related Feeding Our Future cases. As such, the undersigned
         AUSAs have taken responsibility for all Feeding Our Future
         prosecutions, including the Mohamed trial and Mr. Ahmed’s trial. 21



19
     See Cunningham, 62 Cal. App. 3d at 156; Birdwell, 983 F.2d at 1340.

20
     Pictorial Offset, 2016 WL 11653460 at *1 n.1.

21
     Doc. 808 at 2–3.

                                                                                     7
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS     Doc. 814   Filed 03/16/26    Page 8 of 10




            In other words, the effects of Operation Metro Surge’s overreach have made

the prosecutors with expertise in the Feeding Our Future cases resign, and now the

prosecutors who remain are not familiar enough with the files to try the Mohamed

case and Abdi’s case back-to-back. The Court should reject this explanation,

however. And that’s because the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s willingness to participate

in Operation Metro Surge gives it “unclean hands” to later point to it as the reason

it’s not prepared for non-Metro Surge cases.

            First, the government’s wrongdoing—its participation in Metro Surge—is

directly related to its continuance request. 22 Next, Abdi will be personally injured by

the wrongdoing because, if the motion is granted, it will force his trial to be

continued when he is ready to proceed and doesn’t want it postponed. 23 Finally, the

connection between Metro Surge and the requested continuance is more than “very

close”—it is literally the reason for the government’s motion. 24 Lastly, while the

government is normally “presumed to come into court with clean hands and is

entitled to the … relief it [seeks],” here it is not. And that’s because its participation


22
     Madison, 2025 WL 3623726 at *9.

23
     Id.

24
     Id.

                                                                                         8
           CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS      Doc. 814    Filed 03/16/26   Page 9 of 10




in Metro Surge is “something which in good conscience it should not have done.” 25

            In sum, the government cannot have it both ways: it can either participate in

Operation Metro Surge and accept the consequences of that choice, or it could have

declined participation. But it cannot now point to the foreseeable consequences of

Operation Metro Surge to justify its request here. The government made its bed;

the Court should now make it lie in it.

            3) The Court should take the U.S. Attorney at his word.

            Finally, any lingering concern that the government’s staffing issues are good

cause for a continuance should be put to rest by the statements of U.S. Attorney

Rosen. As noted above, when asked directly about the departures of the Feeding Our

Future prosecutors, Mr. Rosen stated unequivocally that they would not affect his

office’s ability to prosecute the cases: “We have more than adequate staffing to carry

out the fraud (investigations).”26 While this no doubt conflicts with the

government’s motion here, unless Mr. Rosen is prepared to sign an affidavit

admitting his error, the Court should take the word of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s

top prosecutor over that of its line attorneys. Simply put, this is a situation that lends

itself to perhaps the most famous legal “gotcha” question known to lawyers and


25
     Id.

26
     See Eric Rasmussen, supra note 1.

                                                                                         9
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 814    Filed 03/16/26   Page 10 of 10




non-lawyers alike: “Were you lying then or are you lying now?” 27 If Mr. Rosen

cannot answer, the Court should take him at his word, determine there is “more

than adequate” staffing to handle Abdi’s trial and the Mohamed trial back-to-back,

and deny the government’s motion.

                                  CONCLUSION

      For these reasons, the government’s motion to continue Mr. Ahmed’s trial

lacks the requisite “good faith” to justify its granting. The Court should deny it.



Date: March 16, 2026                   Respectfully submitted,




                                       Dane DeKrey (#0397334)
                                       RINGSTROM DEKREY PLLP
                                       814 Center Avenue, Suite 5
                                       Moorhead, MN 56560
                                       (218) 284-0484
                                       dane@ringstromdekrey.com




27
   WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (Billy Wilder dir., 1957). See Rafi Reznik, The
Auteur as Editor, 73 STAN. L. REV. ONLINE 11, 11 (May 2020) (arguing for a different
citation format for movies than the one used by the Bluebook).

                                                                                      10


File and source

File

814.pdf

Size

155,742 bytes

SHA-256

605ece913562dcf3515653a51e17b9a080986567f233bcf976be3c9162a16b18

Our copy

814.pdf

Original

archive.org