Court filing — United States v. Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 815, D. Minn.)

Summary

The Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel, Doc. 815, filed 03/17/26 in Case 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS, United States of America v. Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed, Criminal No. 22-223(14) (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The United States responds to the motion to compel (ECF No. 809) and states that it can be denied as moot once the defendant confirms receipt of certain extraction files. It states that new government counsel entered the case on or about February 2, 2026, that the defendant's earlier requests went to attorneys no longer with the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that the defense did not confer before filing. It states that the government has offered laptop and external hard drive extractions and re-produced the requested documents on March 13, 2026. The filing is dated March 17, 2026.

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. 815   Filed 03/17/26   Page 1 of 3




                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                     Criminal No. 22-223(14) (NEB/DTS)


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          GOVERNMENT’S
                                                   RESPONSE TO
                   Plaintiff,                      DEFENDANT’S MOTION
                                                   TO COMPEL
       v.

ABDIRAHMAN MOHAMUD AHMED,

                   Defendant.

      The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Daniel N.

Rosen, United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Rebecca E.

Kline and Matthew C. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby

respond to the defendant’s motion to compel (ECF No. 809). The government

believes that Mr. Ahmed’s motion can be denied as moot upon confirmation

that he has received certain requested extraction files.

      On or about February 2, 2026, the undersigned counsel entered

appearances on behalf of the United States on Mr. Ahmed’s case, along with

all other cases related to the Feeding Our Future fraud schemes. Shortly after

entering appearances, undersigned counsel contacted the defendant’s counsel

in order to introduce the new prosecution team and begin discussions about

the case.    Counsel for the government and the defendant spoke via

teleconference on February 3, 2026. During that meeting, counsel for the
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS      Doc. 815   Filed 03/17/26   Page 2 of 3




government explained the transition that was underway and the fact that the

undersigned attorneys were entirely new to the case. Mr. Ahmed’s counsel did

not raise any issues related to the government’s prior discovery productions,

nor any concerns they had which were unaddressed by the government’s

previous counsel.

      On March 10, 2026, the defendant filed a motion to compel the

production of certain trial exhibits contained on an exhibit list previously

disclosed to Mr. Ahmed’s prior counsel as well as Safari Restaurant’s internal

CCTV video footage. In support of the motion, counsel explained that they had

requested these items from the government on December 8 and December 17,

2025, and had not received them. However, absent from the motion was the

fact that those requests were made to attorneys who are no longer with the

U.S. Attorney’s Office and were never raised with the undersigned AUSAs. In

fact, counsel for the defendant failed to meet and confer with counsel for the

government at all prior to filing a motion to compel.

      Notwithstanding the lack of meet and confer, as well as the fact that

many of the documents requested were either already provided to the defense

or not required to be produced until the appropriate pre-trial exhibit disclosure

deadline, the government re-produced the requested documents on Friday,

March 13, 2026. The government is also preparing to provide Mr. Ahmed’s
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 815   Filed 03/17/26   Page 3 of 3




counsel with the cell phone extraction that contains the “GG” exhibits

requested.

      As to the CCTV footage, the government took steps to determine whether

any such footage was seized during the warranted search of Safari Restaurant.

The government determined that a laptop and external hard drive were seized,

the latter of which contained a handful of video files which may constitute

CCTV footage. 1 The government has offered to provide both the laptop and

external hard drive extractions to Mr. Ahmed’s counsel.

      Accordingly, the government believes that Mr. Ahmed’s motion to compel

can be denied as moot upon confirmation that he has received all requested

extraction files.

      Dated: March 17, 2026                 Respectfully Submitted,

                                            DANIEL N. ROSEN
                                            United States Attorney

                                            s/ Rebecca E. Kline
                                            REBECCA E. KLINE
                                            MATTHEW C. MURPHY
                                            Assistant United States Attorney




1 The government has not reviewed the video files in detail to confirm whether they

are in fact CCTV files. However, the government has no reason to believe the videos
constitute Brady material or are required to be turned over under Rule 16.


File and source

File

815.pdf

Size

72,855 bytes

SHA-256

9ee3b5751fff7e7b8fd9fc3bd73fc23516e5b04d293dfc44a1df00619a99bb12

Our copy

815.pdf

Original

archive.org