Findings, Recommendation, and Order — No. 4:24-cr-03048 (Dkt. 135, D. Neb.)

Summary

Findings, recommendation and order, filed 08/07/24, ruling on sixty-six (66) pretrial motions filed by pro se defendant Jamaal McNeil. McNeil is indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty (50) grams or more of methamphetamine after a previous serious drug felony conviction, and the government seeks forfeiture of $853 seized from him and $2,495 seized from his apartment on November 29, 2023. He waived counsel, pleaded not guilty and was ordered detained. Because the motions were often duplicative, the court addresses each argument on its merits rather than motion by motion. It denies or recommends denial of most requests, rejects sovereign citizen arguments as frivolous, and defers rulings on the motion to suppress and return of property.

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

“Findings, Recommendation, and Order — No. 4:24-cr-03048 (Dkt. 135, D. Neb.).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/findings-recommendation-and-order-no-4-24-cr-03048-dkt-135-d-neb-fb397be54d/, SHA-256 7bb74f3915228117784f39308922f258cf524931b1d4e4e548f4d7f8c53d03a0.

Full text

4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 1 of 32 - Page ID # 673

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 4:24CR3048

vs.
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATION, AND
ORDER
JAMAAL MCNEIL,

Defendant.

Now pending before the Court are sixty-six (66) pretrial motions filed by pro se
Defendant Jamaal McNeil. Filing Nos. 16, 19–22, 24, 29, 32–36, 47, 50, 53, 55, 57–58,
60, 62, 71, 75–77, 79, 88, 91–96, 98–120, 122–23, 125–32, and 134. The Court
addresses each of Defendant’s pending motions as set forth below.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A grand jury indicted Defendant with one count of possession with intent to
distribute fifty (50) grams or more of methamphetamine while he had a previous
conviction for a serious drug felony. The indictment also alleges Defendant is subject to
criminal forfeiture of $853 seized from his person and $2,495 seized from his apartment
on November 29, 2023. Filing No. 1.

Defendant initially appeared on the charge on May 23, 2024. He waived his right
to counsel and pleaded not guilty. The Court immediately proceeded to a detention
hearing and ordered Defendant detained. Filing No. 15.

The Court set the pretrial motions deadline for June 13, 2024. Filing No. 12.
Defendant filed forty-eight (48) handwritten motions between May 23 and June 6. The
Court orally ruled on a portion of the pending motions during a hearing held on June 6,

1
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 2 of 32 - Page ID # 674

2024. In relevant part, the Court orally granted Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea
of not guilty and found Defendant’s plea is not guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11. The Court also denied Defendant’s motions for a preliminary hearing
because he was indicted by grand jury. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis because it previously found Defendant is indigent. Finally, the Court
reopened the detention hearing and denied Defendant’s motions for release.

The government was ordered to respond by July 8 to the motions pending at the
time of the June 6 hearing as well as three motions filed shortly after the hearing. Filing
No. 87 at 87; Filing No. 80 (text minute entry). The Court set July 14 as Defendant’s
deadline to file an amended motion to suppress and ordered the government to respond
to the motion to suppress pursuant to the local rules. The government filed its response
briefs on June 28 (motion to suppress) and July 8 (other motions). Filing Nos. 84 and 90.

Defendant filed an influx of new pretrial motions after the June 6 hearing (a number
of which are dated prior to June 6). He also filed Filing Nos. 122 and 134, which the Court
construes as Defendant’s briefs in support of his various motions. The government did
not respond to the additional motions within the time contemplated by the local rules.

ANALYSIS

Defendant styled each motion as a separate pretrial motion containing its own case
caption, certificate of service, signature, and supporting affidavit. Defendant also filed
evidence in support of his motions, Filings Nos. 31, 68, 69, 97, 124 and 133, and two
independent certificates of service—Filing Nos. 72 and 121. Unfortunately, Defendant’s
motions contain a variety of arguments that do not always relate to the type of motion it
purports to be in the case caption (i.e., motion in limine, motion to quash, etc.).
Defendant’s motions are also often duplicative and tend to repeat the same argument ad
nauseum.

Accordingly, instead of addressing Defendant’s motions individually, the
undersigned addresses the merits of each of Defendant’s arguments. If an argument in a
motion lacks merit, the undersigned denies the motion in part. If all the arguments in a
motion lack merit, the undersigned denies the motion in full. The undersigned applies the

2
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 3 of 32 - Page ID # 675

same principle in reverse to grant a motion in part or in full. Attachment A details the
Court’s rulings and the undersigned’s recommendations, if necessary, on each motion.

I. Preliminary Issues.

The undersigned begins her analysis by discussing the procedural and other
preliminary matters raised in the motions.

First, a portion of the pending motions are untimely. The Court’s order required the
parties to file any pretrial motions by June 13, 2024. Filing No. 12. “A party’s failure to file
a pretrial motion by the court-imposed deadline constitutes a waiver of the issue.” United
States v. Floyd, No. 3:20-CR-30082, 2024 WL 1154849, at *3 (D.S.D. Mar. 18, 2024)
(citing United States v. Trancheff, 633 F.3d 696, 697 (8th Cir. 2011)). However, the Court
may still “consider the defense, objection, or request” in an untimely pretrial motion “if the
party shows good cause.” Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 12(c)(3).

A significant portion of the motions now pending before the Court were filed after
the pretrial motions deadline but mailed by Defendant before the deadline lapsed. The
Court finds good cause to consider these motions (Filing Nos. 88, 91–96, and 98–119)—
it will not punish a pro se Defendant for a situation wholly outside his control.

Defendant also mailed two more batches of motions after the deadline lapsed.
Filing Nos. 122, 123, and 124 are postmarked July 2 and Filing Nos. 125–134 are
postmarked July 13. The Court nonetheless finds there is good cause to consider the
arguments in these motions. This is the first written order on any of Defendant’s pretrial
motions and the case is not set for trial. Defendant is warned, however, that the Court is
extremely unlikely to consider any further untimely pretrial motions absent a finding of
good cause.

Second, Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing. He testified during the June
6 hearing that he was requesting an evidentiary hearing in Filing No. 50 for all his pretrial
motions. Filing No. 87 at 55–56. Defendant also asserts he is requesting an evidentiary
hearing in several other motions. Filing Nos. 55,1 94, 95, and 113. Accordingly, the Court

1 See Filing No. 87 at 63 (it is not obvious from the face of the motion this is a request for an evidentiary
hearing).

3
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 4 of 32 - Page ID # 676

denies Filing Nos. 55, 94, 95, and 113 in part as duplicative requests for relief and
construes Filing No. 50 as Defendant’s sole request for an evidentiary hearing on all
pending pretrial motions.

As outlined below, the Court defers finding whether Defendant is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing on his motion to return property until the government responds and/or
its response deadline lapses. The Court orders an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s
motion to suppress. It finds an evidentiary hearing is not required on Defendant’s
remaining pretrial motions. After all, the Court heard oral argument on most of
Defendant’s alleged grounds for relief during the June 6 hearing. Accordingly, the Court
defers ruling on Filing No. 50 in part, grants Filing No. 50 in part, and denies Filing No. 50
in part.

Third, the undersigned notes Defendant uses the word “object” in several of his
motions. Based on the context in which Defendant uses the word “object,” the
undersigned is not construing any of the pending motions as an objection to prior orders.
If Defendant would like to object to the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s orders, Defendant
must (1) label his pleading “Statement of Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order” or
“Statement of Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,”
(2) specify which order he is objecting to, and (3) otherwise comply with the requirements
in Local Rule 59.2.

Fourth and finally, Defendant makes a few substantive arguments that generally
apply to all his pending motions. More specifically, Defendant moves to dismiss the case
for lack of jurisdiction. Filing Nos. 34 and 76. “District courts have jurisdiction over
violations of federal law.” United States v. Cooper, No. 4:21-CR-190, 2023 WL 3936724,
at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 2, 2023), report and recommendation adopted by 2023 WL 3933684
(citing United States v. Anderson, 846 Fed. App’x 429, 429 (8th Cir. 2021)). Defendant is
charged with violating federal law, specifically 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1). Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes at issue in this
case and the undersigned recommends the Court deny Filing Nos. 34 and 76 in part.

Similarly, Defendant also moves the Court to apply Nebraska state law when it
rules on his pending motions. Filing Nos. 29, 114, and 132; see also Filing No. 87 at 33;

4
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 5 of 32 - Page ID # 677

Filing No. 87 at 53–54 (arguing the grand jury proceeding was defective because
Defendant is governed by state law). Federal law is binding in federal prosecutions.2 See,
e.g., United States v. Allery, 526 F.2d 1362, 1364 (8th Cir. 1975) (“[T]he common law
evidentiary rules as developed through federal court decisions and supplemented by acts
of Congress control in federal criminal cases.”); United States v. Feiste, 792 F. Supp.
1153, 1155 (D. Neb. 1991) (“As this is a prosecution under federal law, the issues raised
by the motion to suppress must be judged by federal law.”). Accordingly, the Court denies
Filing Nos. 29, 114, and 132 in part. The undersigned notes, however, Defendant is still
permitted to cite Nebraska state law as persuasive authority to support his arguments.
The Court is typically not obligated to follow state precedent, but it may be persuaded by
the reasoning in a state court decision if it is appropriately applicable to the situation at
hand.

Finally, Defendant represents to the Court in Filing No. 71 that he presented the
motions in good faith. “[T]he term motion generally means ‘[a]n application made to a
court or judge for purpose of obtaining a rule or order directing some act to be done in
favor of the applicant.’” United States v. Bloate, 655 F.3d 750, 756 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120 (1996)). Defendant is not asking the Court for
any type of relief with this argument. Filing No. 87 at 82–83. Accordingly, the Court denies
Filing No. 71 in part as moot.

II. Sovereign Citizen Arguments.

Next, the undersigned notes Defendant believes in a wholly fictious legal system
and a vast majority of his motions rely on this fictious law. The Eighth Circuit has
repeatedly affirmed the Court should deny these types of arguments as frivolous. See,
e.g., United States v. Simonson, 563 Fed. App’x 514 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v.
Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Willis, 101 F.4th
577, 583 (8th Cir. 2024) (citing United States v. Taylor, 21 F.4th 94, 102 (3d Cir. 2021)).

2 The undersigned notes state law may apply in federal prosecutions in very specific, narrow
circumstances. See, e.g., United States v. Moore, 956 F.2d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 1992) (analyzing warrant
pursuant to Nebraska law). Defendant did not point to, nor did the undersigned locate, a circumstance
justifying the application of Nebraska law to Defendant’s pretrial motions.

5
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 6 of 32 - Page ID # 678

Specifically, Defendant invokes his right to have this case governed by
ecclesiastical court law to protect his God-given right, as a sovereign citizen, to complete
freedom from prosecution.3 Citing ecclesiastical court law, he seeks joinder of himself as
plaintiff so he can move to strike the government as a party and dismiss the case against
himself as the sole remaining plaintiff.4 While creative, these arguments are baseless.

Defendant also frequently reiterates that he has a drug tax stamp and argues this
is a legal defense to the pending possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine
charge.5 In the same vein, he argues the instant prosecution is vindictive because the
government opted to prosecute Defendant for allegedly selling drugs instead of billing him
for taxes owed on the alleged drug sales.6 Finally, he argues the government should
accept a bond—possibly to compensate the government for unpaid taxes7—in exchange
for dismissing the pending prosecution.8 Once again, these arguments lack any merit and
are baseless. Defendant is not charged with a tax crime and paying taxes on drug sales
does not preclude the government from prosecuting him for allegedly selling drugs.

Consistent with Defendant’s first two arguments, Defendant moves to subpoena
the IRS and/or the tax commissioner for evidence that he has a drug tax stamp, and he
is a sovereign citizen.9 He then argues he is entitled to present this evidence of sovereign
citizenship in front of the grand jury, at a preliminary hearing, or at a reopened detention

3 Filing Nos. 21, 35, 62, 70, 71, and 76 (Defendant registered with ecclesiastical court); Filing Nos. 29, 36,
75, 96, 98, 106, 113, 114, 129, and 132 (Court should apply ecclesiastical court law); Filing Nos. 33, 35,
36, 76, and 94 (Defendant cannot be prosecuted pursuant to ecclesiastical court law); Filing No. 16 (moves
for judgment from ecclesiastical court); Filing Nos. 75, 76, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112, and 113 (asserts or
presents evidence Defendant is a sovereign citizen and/or has a drug tax stamp); Filing Nos. 53, 57, 108,
109, 119, and 127 (pretrial services report is evidence Defendant is a sovereign citizen).
4 Filing Nos. 20, 21, 33, 34, 36, 55, 60, 62, 75, 98, 100, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 127, and 129; see

also Filing Nos. 57, 108, 109, 110, and 127 (moving to strike government as a third-party).
5 Filings Nos. 21, 33, 35, 36, 57, 75, 93, 94, 96, 98, 120, 129, and 132.
6 Filings Nos. 53, 75, and 76.
7 Defendant also petitions the IRS for tax relief due to hardship. Filing Nos. 75, 114, 120, and 132.
8 Filing Nos. 53, 70, 76, and 120 (defendant able and willing to provide bond the government should accept

in lieu of prosecution); see also Filing No. 77 (government should accept bond in lieu of pursuing criminal
forfeiture of defendant’s property); Filing Nos. 47, 55, 62, 93, 94, 95, 129, and 132 (moves the Court to
accept bond and dismiss the instant case like Defendant’s child support case accepted a bond); Filing Nos.
47, 55, 62, 129, and 132 (Defendant governed by nuisance law so nuisance bond may issue); Filing No.
55 (government required to dismiss case because Defendant is complying with law by paying taxes).
9 Filing Nos. 24, 32, 58, 62, 75, 79, 102, 103, and 128; Filing No. 87 at 20, 23, and 75; see also Filing Nos.

93 and 94 (moves for subpoenas to the IRS/Tax Commissioner to issue prior to the preliminary hearing so
he may present his sovereign citizen evidence at the hearing).

6
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 7 of 32 - Page ID # 679

hearing.10 Defendant also asserts a variety of miscellaneous sovereign citizen arguments.
He requests damages from both the government and the government’s witnesses for
violating his God-given rights.11 He seeks to subpoena Risk Management to obtain
evidence to file a tort claim so he can apply a damages award to pay taxes on his alleged
drug sales, obligating the government to dismiss the instant case.12 Like the rest of
Defendant’s sovereign citizen arguments, these arguments lack merit and are completely
frivolous.

Finally, Defendant seeks to terminate a contract he believes was created when he
signed an in forma pauperis form provided by a probation officer. Filing No. 34. He also
moves for a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58(a)(d). Filing No. 98. While not
inherently sovereign citizen arguments, neither of these arguments are grounded in
legitimate law. The undersigned could not locate a statute or local rule corresponding to
the citation “Rule 58(a)(d),”13 and it is unclear how or why the alleged contract is relevant
to the instant criminal prosecution. The undersigned notes Defendant also moves to
proceed in forma pauperis, so Filing No. 34 is not intended to dispute his indigent status.

In sum, Defendant’s sovereign citizen arguments are grounded in either a
completely fictious legal system or a flawed misunderstanding and misapplication of
various federal and state statutes and caselaw to support a fictious legal theory. Out of
an abundance of caution, because Defendant argues his perceived sovereign status
should result in the dismissal of his case, the undersigned does not deny Defendant’s
motions relying on sovereign citizen arguments outright. Rather, the undersigned
recommends the Court deny Filing Nos. 16, 20, 60, 110, and 128 in full and Filing Nos.
21, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 47, 53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 70, 14 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 93, 94, 95,

10 Filing Nos. 47 and 96; Filing No. 87 at 53–54 (Defendant alleges there is a defect in the grand jury
proceedings because he was not provided an opportunity to present evidence that he is governed by
ecclesiastical court law and because any charges related to non-payment of taxes are incorrect).
11 Filing Nos. 16, 33, and 34.
12 Filing Nos. 24, 32, 62; Filing No. 87 at 20, 23.
13 The Court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 addresses separate judgments. However, as

this matter is a criminal proceeding, these rules are inapplicable.
14 The Court construes Filing No. 70 as a motion pursuant to Defendant’s testimony at the June 6 hearing.

Filing No. 87 at 81–82.

7
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 8 of 32 - Page ID # 680

96, 98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 119, 120, 127, 129,
and 132 in part as frivolous in relation to Defendant’s sovereign citizen arguments.

III. Substantive Issues.

The undersigned now turns to the remainder of Defendant’s substantive
arguments. First, the undersigned denies any motions relying on arguments the Court
previously ruled on during the June 6 hearing as moot. The undersigned then divides
Defendant’s remaining arguments into four broad categories: (1) motions pertaining to
prior proceedings, (2) grounds to dismiss the entire case, (3) evidentiary issues, and
(4) issues collaterally related to the prosecution.

A. Moot Motions.

The Court previously ruled on many of the arguments Defendant raises in his
pending motions during the June 6 hearing. Accordingly, the Court denies these
arguments as moot pursuant to the following analysis.

First, Defendant argues the indictment is defective because he did not receive a
preliminary hearing. Filing Nos. 19, 21, 35, 47, 62, 93, 94, 95, 106, 108, 112, 113, 114,
and 129; see also Filing No. 93 (requests the Court hold preliminary hearing within seven
days). The Court previously took judicial notice of the indictment, Filing No. 1, and ruled
during the June 6 hearing Defendant is not entitled to a preliminary hearing because he
was indicted by grand jury. Filing No. 87 at 27; see also Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 5.1(a)(2). The
Court denies Filing Nos. 19, 21, 35, 47, 62, 93, 94, 95, 106, 108, 112, 113, 114, and 129
in part as moot.

Second, Defendant moves to withdraw his not guilty plea. Filing Nos. 21, 33, 76,
and 111. The Court previously granted Defendant’s motion to withdraw pleas—Filing No.
30—and entered Defendant’s plea as not guilty pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11. Filing No. 87 at 33–34; see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(a)(4) (“If a defendant
refuses to enter a plea . . . the court must enter a plea of not guilty.”). The Court denies
Filing No. 111 in full and Filing Nos. 21, 33, 76 in part as moot.

8
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 9 of 32 - Page ID # 681

Third, Defendant seeks to reopen the May 23 detention hearing. Filing Nos. 35,15
55, 62, 88, 94, 95, 96, 106, 108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123,
and 129. The Court reopened Defendant’s detention hearing during the June 6 hearing
and denied Defendant’s motions for release based, in relevant part, on the pretrial
services report, the affidavits attached to the motions filed at the time of the June 6
hearing, and arguments by both parties. Filing No. 87 at 87–88, 91–92. The Court denies
the bulk of Defendant’s motions seeking to reopen the May 23 detention hearing as moot.
Specifically, the Court denies Filing Nos. 88, 115, 117, 118, 123 in full and Filing Nos. 35,
55, 62, 94, 95, 96, 106, 108, 109, 113, 114, 116, 120, and 129 in part as moot.

The undersigned notes, however, that two of Defendant’s motions seeking to
reopen the May 23 detention hearing contain new arguments not before the Court at the
June 6 hearing. Specifically, Defendant asserts in the affidavits attached to Filing No. 112
and 119 (filed July 8) that the pretrial services report erroneously reports Defendant was
previously convicted of a felony when the underlying case was vacated. Since Defendant
also moves to reopen the June 6 detention hearing, the Court will not deny these motions
as moot and will consider this argument in conjunction with the new motions for release
from detention (addressed below).

Fourth, Defendant moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Filing Nos. 70, 92, 99,
101, 124,16 130, and 133.17 The Court previously granted another one of Defendant’s
motions to proceed in forma pauperis in part during the June 6 hearing because
Defendant is indigent. Filing No. 87 at 19. Accordingly, the Court denies Filing Nos. 92,
99, 101, 124, 130, and 133 in full and Filing No. 70 in part as moot.

Finally, Defendant moves for “all no notice injunction[s]” to be dissolved,
withdrawn, and terminated. Filing No. 125. He also moves to quash all the government’s
motions. Filing No. 105. Both requests are moot, not because the Court previously ruled
on these arguments, but because there are currently no injunctions or pending

15 Although not obvious from the motion itself, Defendant testified during the June 6 hearing that Filing No.
35 is a motion to quash his detention. Filing No. 87 at 42.
16 The Court construes page 12 of Filing No. 124 as a motion.
17 The Court construes page 14 of Filing No. 133 as a motion.

9
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 10 of 32 - Page ID # 682

government motions in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies Filing No. 125 in full and
105 in part as moot.

B. Motions Pertaining to Prior Proceedings.

Defendant alleges there were errors in the grand jury proceeding and seeks to
reopen the June 6 detention hearing. The undersigned addresses Defendant’s arguments
pertaining to the grand jury proceeding first.

The grand jury does not determine guilt or innocence, it assesses whether there is
probable cause to charge the defendant. See United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 51
(1992). These “proceedings are afforded a strong presumption of regularity, and a
defendant seeking to overcome that presumption faces a heavy burden.” United States
v. Fenner, 600 F.3d 1014, 1021 (8th Cir. 2010). The defendant must show a violation
affected the grand jury’s decision (actual prejudice) for the district court to dismiss an
indictment. United States v. Stewart, No. 5:19-CR-50167, 2021 WL 3684557, at *3
(D.S.D. May 7, 2021) (citing Bank of Nova Scotia, 487 U.S. 250, 254, 263 (1988)).

A defendant is not entitled to present exculpatory evidence at a grand jury
proceeding—it is not a “mini-trial.” See United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 518 (8th Cir.
1983). The grand jury may consider evidence that is ultimately inadmissible at trial, such
as hearsay or evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. United States v.
Posadas, No. 8:09CR147, 2009 WL 3021163, at *2 (D. Neb. Sept. 17, 2009) (citing United
States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 349 (1974)); see also United States v. Bowie, 618 F.3d
802, 817–18 (8th Cir. 2010).

Defendant argues he is entitled to a preliminary hearing due to errors in the grand
jury proceeding. Filing Nos. 36, 47, 75, 93, 95, and 106. As addressed above, Defendant
is not entitled to a preliminary hearing because he was indicted by grand jury. The Court
nonetheless addresses Defendant’s alleged errors, interpreting his arguments as moving
for dismissal of the indictment due to errors in the grand jury proceeding.

Specifically, Defendant asserts there was an error in the proceeding because
(1) he was not provided an opportunity to present his evidence, (2) the grand jurors may
have received bad, misleading, or hearsay evidence, and (3) there was no probable

10
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 11 of 32 - Page ID # 683

cause for the traffic stop. Filing No. 36, 47, 75, 93, 95, and 106; Filing No. 87 at 53–54.
Defendant did not meet his burden. He is not entitled to present evidence to the grand
jury. The grand jury may consider hearsay evidence or evidence the Court ultimately
suppresses for trial (i.e., evidence arising from the traffic stop). Defendant did not point to
any actual prejudice arising from the grand jury proceedings. Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends the Court deny Filing Nos. 36, 47, 75, 93, 95, and 106 in part.

Defendant also moves to reopen detention. Filing Nos. 129 and 131. Accordingly,
the undersigned considers whether the Court should reopen the detention hearing. In
doing so, the undersigned also considers Defendant’s argument in Filing Nos. 112 and
119 that the pretrial services report incorrectly reports Defendant’s prior convictions.

The Court may reopen the detention hearing “at any time before trial if the judicial
officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the
hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of
release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the
safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2).

Defendant previously argued, in the affidavits proffered as evidence at the June 6
detention hearing, that the Court should release him because stand-by counsel was
ineffective for failing to provide him the pretrial services report prior to the May 23
detention hearing. See, e.g., Filing No. 55-1. Accordingly, this argument is not new and
does not provide a basis to reopen detention. Defendant also argues the pretrial services
report erroneously indicates he was convicted of a felony in CR-16-3742. Filing Nos. 112
and 119. Moreover, the case number referenced by Defendant does not line up with any
of the case numbers associated with Defendant’s criminal history on the pretrial services
report. See Filing No. 8. Given the lack of clarity and the undersigned’s prior findings, the
undersigned finds this information is not enough to justify reopening Defendant’s
detention hearing yet again. The Court denies Filing No. 131 in full and Filing Nos. 112,
119, and 129 in part.

11
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 12 of 32 - Page ID # 684

C. Grounds to Dismiss the Action.

Defendant generally argues the Court should dismiss his case because (1) the
indictment fails to state a claim, Filing Nos. 34 and 76, (2) the facts indicate dismissal is
appropriate, Filing Nos. 53, and (3) the prosecution violates double jeopardy.

First, the indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the
essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 7(c)(1). The
indictment must (1) articulate the elements of the offense to fairly inform the defendant of
the charge and (2) provide sufficient detail for the defendant to invoke double jeopardy in
a future prosecution. United States v. Morris, 18 F.3d 562, 568 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)). “An indictment is normally sufficient
if its language tracks the statutory language.” United States v. Sewell, 513 F.3d 820, 821
(2008). The indictment in the instant case is sufficient. It tracks the statutory language of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 851 and 21 U.S.C. § 853. The undersigned
recommends the Court deny Filing Nos. 34 and 76 in part.

Second, Defendant argues the Court should dismiss his case because he did not
break the law and, thus, the government is vindictively prosecuting him to retaliate for the
dismissal of his state court cases. Filing No. 53 (citing Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 12(b)(3)(A)(iv)
(selective or vindictive prosecution defense)).

Prosecutors have broad discretion to enforce criminal laws. United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 456 (1996). A presumption of regularity supports prosecutorial
decisions and, “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that
[prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.” Id. at 464 (quotation omitted).
“[S]o long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed
an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge
to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Id. (quotation
omitted).

“Vindictive prosecution occurs when a prosecutor seeks to punish a defendant
solely for exercising a valid legal right.” United States v. Williams, 793 F.3d 957, 963 (8th
Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955, 961 (8th Cir. 2004)). “A
prosecution designed solely to punish a defendant for exercising a valid legal right

12
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 13 of 32 - Page ID # 685

violates due process.” Leathers, 354 F.3d at 961. “It is the defendant’s burden to show
that the prosecution was brought in order to punish the defendant for the exercise of a
legal right.” Id. Given the broad discretion given to prosecutors in performing their duties,
the defendant's burden to show vindictive prosecution is a heavy one. Williams, 793 F.3d
at 963.

To prove prosecutorial vindictiveness, a defendant must present “objective
evidence of the prosecutor’s vindictive or improper motive in increasing the number or
severity of charges.” United States v. Chappell, 779 F.3d 872, 879 (8th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation omitted). “Absent such evidence, a defendant may, in rare instances, rely upon
a presumption of vindictiveness, if he provides sufficient evidence to show a reasonable
likelihood of vindictiveness exists.” Id. (quotations omitted). In determining whether the
presumption of vindictiveness should apply, a court examines “the prosecutor’s actions in
the context of the entire proceedings.” Id. at 880 (quotation omitted). “The fact that the
federal government prosecutes a federal crime in a federal court that could or has been
prosecuted as a state crime in state court does not itself violate due process.” United
States v. Beede, 974 F.2d 948, 952 (8th Cir. 1992) (no presumption of vindictiveness
arose when defendant was prosecuted on federal charges after he refused to plead guilty
on state charges).

The only evidence Defendant presents in support of his vindictive prosecution
argument are the assertions in his affidavit that he did not break the law and his state
court cases were dismissed. The grand jury found there was probable cause to indict
Defendant. Whether Defendant committed the alleged crime is a question for the
factfinder at trial. Defendant did not present any evidence regarding the state court cases,
such as whether the state court cases arose out of the same facts as the instant case.
Defendant did not fulfill his heavy burden to prove vindictive prosecution. Neither
Defendant’s evidence nor the context of this proceeding indicates the government is
vindictively prosecuting Defendant. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the Court
deny Filing No. 53 in part.

Third, the states and the federal governments are separate sovereigns. Gamble v.
United States, 587 U.S. 678, 688–89 (2019). Thus, the dual-sovereignty doctrine permits

13
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 14 of 32 - Page ID # 686

the federal government to prosecute a defendant under a federal statute, even if a State
previously prosecuted the defendant for the same conduct under state law, without
violating double jeopardy. Id. at 681. Defendant argues the instant case violates double
jeopardy because he was previously prosecuted in two state court cases: CR-24-409 and
CR-23-13420.18 However, because a state and the federal government may both
prosecute Defendant for the same conduct without violating double jeopardy, the
undersigned recommends the Court deny Filing Nos. 21, 35, 53, 55, 58, 75, 76, 98, 100,
106, 107, 112, 114, and 129 in part.

The Court denies Defendant’s motions to consolidate using the same rationale.
Defendant moves to consolidate the instant case with the same two state court cases
(CR-23-13420 and CR-24-409).19 Filing Nos. 21, 22, and 33. Since the federal
government and the states are separate sovereigns, the Court cannot consolidate a case
brought by one sovereign (the state) with a case brought by the other sovereign (the
federal government). Accordingly, the Court denies Filing Nos. 21, 22, and 33 in part.

D. Evidentiary Issues.

Defendant generally moves to obtain evidence and exclude evidence. The
undersigned first addresses Defendant’s motions to obtain evidence before turning to
Defendant’s motion in limine and motion to suppress.

i. Motions to Obtain Evidence.

First, Defendant generally moves to obtain discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 16. Filing No. 91. The Court grants Filing No. 91 and orders the
government to comply, to the extent it has not already done so, with the disclosure
requirements set forth in this Court’s Progression Order. Filing No. 12.

18 Filing Nos. 53, 55, 58, 76, 98, 100, 107, and 112; see also Filing No. 114 (moving the Court to dismiss
the case pursuant to collateral estoppel or res judicata); Filing Nos. 21, 35, 75, 106, and 129 (seeking
dismissal of the instant case on the grounds that his previous cases were dismissed).
19 Defendant initially also moved to consolidate the instant case with another federal case (8:06-CR-123).

During the June 6 hearing, Defendant testified he was no longer asking the Court to consolidate 8:06-CR-
123 and the instant case. Filing No. 87 at 18. The Court now grants Defendant’s oral motion to withdraw
and deems the pertinent portions of Filing Nos. 21, 22, and 33 withdrawn.

14
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 15 of 32 - Page ID # 687

Second, Defendant moves to subpoena the public docket of case numbers CR-
23-13420 and CR-24-409 from the County Court, the Clerk of the City of Lincoln, and the
Clerk of the District Court. Filing Nos. 24, 32, 62, 79, 102, and 103; Filing No. 87 at 37.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 governs subpoenas to obtain documents.
“A party seeking to serve and enforce compliance with subpoenas issued in a criminal
case must show: (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that they are
not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3)
that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in
advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to
delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a
general ‘fishing expedition.’” United States v. Manzi, No. 4:19CR3094, 2022 WL 874598,
at *4 (D. Neb. Mar. 24, 2022) (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 702 (1974)).

Defendant indicated in Filing No. 79 that he is subpoenaing these documents as
evidence to support his double jeopardy argument. As addressed above, the undersigned
recommends the Court deny Defendant’s double jeopardy argument pursuant to the dual
sovereignty doctrine. Since Defendant’s double jeopardy argument lacks merit, the
documents Defendant seeks to subpoena are irrelevant. Additionally, Defendant testified
he is seeking documents available on the public docket, Filing No. 87 at 37, but did not
show he was unable to procure these documents through other channels with an exercise
of due diligence.20 The Court denies Defendant’s motions for subpoenas. Specifically, the
Court denies Filing Nos. 24, 32, 62, 79, 102, and 103 in part.

ii. Motions to Exclude Evidence.

Defendant also moves to exclude evidence at trial. The undersigned divides these
arguments into a construed motion in limine and a construed motion to suppress.

20 The undersigned notes Defendant included an order issued in CR-24-409 in Filing No. 124 at 19 and
Filing No. 133 at 21, indicating Defendant is able to obtain access to the public docket in the state court
cases.

15
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 16 of 32 - Page ID # 688

Motion in Limine:

Defendant generally moves to exclude all the government’s evidence and
witnesses. Filing Nos. 33, 34,21 35,22 57, 58, 62, 107, 108, and 113. He also moves to
impeach the government’s witnesses23 and requests the Court timely grant his motion in
limines. Filing No. 62, 75, 93, 94, 104, 113, 127, and 129. The Court interprets these
portions of Filing Nos. 33, 34, 35, 57, 58, 62, 93, 94, 104, 107, 108, 113, 127, and 129 as
duplicative prayers for relief pertaining to Defendant’s sole motion in limine—Filing No.
75. Accordingly, the Court denies Filing Nos. 33, 34, 35, 57, 58, 62, 93, 94, 104, 107, 108,
113, 127, and 129 in part as duplicative.

In Filing No. 75, Defendant argues the Court should exclude the testimony of the
officers and confidential informants pertaining to the weight (amount) of drugs Defendant
allegedly sold during controlled buys. This motion is premature. The Court’s progression
order provides it may summarily deny motions in limine filed earlier than fourteen (14)
days before trial. Filing No. 12. The undersigned recommends the Court deny Filing No.
75 in part without prejudice to reassertion prior to trial.

Motion to Suppress:

Defendant requests a continuance of his motion to suppress deadline until after
the Court rules on the issues addressed at the June 6 hearing. Filing No. 76. The Court
grants Filing No. 76 in part and orders Defendant to file any amended motion to suppress
by August 16, 2024. The Court finds good cause has been shown to continue Defendant’s
deadline to file an amended motion to suppress.

During the June 6 hearing, the Court set a June 14 deadline for Defendant to file
an amended motion to suppress. Filing No. 87 at 87. On June 11, Defendant mailed Filing
No. 76 requesting an extension of the deadline to file an amended motion to suppress
until after the undersigned ruled on the motions pending at the June 6 hearing. The
government responded to Defendant’s sole motion to suppress—Filing No. 58—on July

21 See Filing No. 87 at 38 (motion in limine issue not obvious from face of motion).
22 See Filing No. 87 at 42 (motion in limine issue not obvious from face of motion).
23 The Court previously granted Defendant’s request to impeach and noted Defendant may impeach

witnesses to the extent any other litigant in federal court may impeach under to the federal rules. Filing No.
87 at 6.

16
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 17 of 32 - Page ID # 689

8. The Court received and filed Filing Nos. 106, 107, and 122 on July 8. Filing Nos. 127,
129, and 134 were filed on July 16.

The Court construes Filing Nos. 106, 107, and 127 as Defendant’s amended
motion to suppress.24 These motions supersede Defendant’s first motion to suppress,
Filing No. 58, and the Court denies Filing No. 58 in part as moot. The Court denies Filing
No. 129 in part as a duplicative prayer for relief on the motion to suppress.

Although Filing Nos. 122 and 134 are titled motions in limine, the Court construes
both filings as briefs submitted in support of all of Defendant’s motions, including
Defendant’s amended motion to suppress. Should Defendant file a second amended
motion to suppress by August 16, 2024, that motion will supersede Filing Nos. 106, 107,
122, 127, and 134 and, should that occur, the Court will deny those motions and briefing
as moot and only consider the newly filed motion to suppress and associated brief.

The government may file a brief in response to Defendant’s amended motion to
suppress (or second amended motion to suppress, should such be filed) by August 30,
2024. If the government does not timely file a response, the Court will presume the
government intends to rely on its previously filed brief.

E. Collateral Issues.

Finally, Defendant moves the Court to grant relief on issues collaterally related to
the prosecution. First, it appears Defendant is moving to preemptively request release
from detention so, if the case is dismissed, he need not remain detained until the speedy
trial clock runs out.25 Filing No. 19 (citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1208 (speedy trial)); Filing
No. 87 at 9–10. The Court denies Filing No. 19 in part with regard to Defendant’s speedy
trial argument—speedy trial protects Defendant’s right to a timely trial; it does not require
Defendant to remain detained for an arbitrary amount of time if his case is dismissed.

24 As addressed above, the Court will not deny, in this Order, any of the pretrial motions currently pending
as untimely because they were filed after the pretrial motions deadline lapsed, although it is unlikely to be
as lenient in the future.
25 “Just in case I do get the case dismissed, sometimes you gotta put discharge on there ‘cause you’ll still

kind of still be sitting here till the six months speedy trial is over.” Filing No. 87 at 10. This motion cites the
Nebraska state speedy trial statute.

17
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 18 of 32 - Page ID # 690

Second, Defendant moves for the return of his property. See Filing Nos. 58, 98,
107, and 116 (requesting the return of Defendant’s property generally). Specifically, he
requests the return of $3,000 and $900 (or $800), Filing Nos. 76, 77, and 126, as well as
the return of his phone, state ID, wallet, and any other property the government
possesses. Filing Nos. 122 (brief), 126 and 127. The Court denies Filing Nos. 58, 98, 107,
and 116 in part as duplicative, general requests to return Defendant’s property.

The undersigned addresses the cash first. The government is seeking criminal
forfeiture of $853 seized from Defendant’s person and $2,495 seized from his apartment.
Filing No. 1. A defendant may move for the return of property pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41(g). The defendant must first “establish lawful entitlement to the
property,” then the burden shifts to the government to “establish a legitimate reason to
retain the property.” Jackson v. United States, 526 F.3d 394, 396–97 (8th Cir. 2008). The
Court must hold an evidentiary hearing “on any factual issue necessary to decide the
motion.” Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 41(g). The Court is not required to hold an evidentiary
hearing if “it is apparent that the person seeking a return of the property is not lawfully
entitled to own or possess the property.” United States v. Howard, 973 F.3d 892, 894 (8th
Cir. 2020). The Court should deny a Rule 41(g) motion if “the government’s need for the
property as evidence continues.” Jackson, 526 F.3d at 397 (quoting United States v.
Vanhorn, 296 F.3d 713, 719 (8th Cir. 2002)).

There is no need to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the cash at this point in
the proceedings. The case is still in the pretrial phase and Defendant is not entitled to
cash the government seized as evidence for trial. Filing No. 90 at 13 (government asserts
it may use cash as evidence at trial); cf. United States v. Rusan, No. S1-4:19CR469, 2023
WL 2967791, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2023). The Court denies Defendant’s motions for
return of the seized cash without prejudice to later assertion. Specifically, the Court denies
Filing Nos. 76, 77, and 126 in part without prejudice.

Next, the undersigned turns to the Defendant’s remaining property. It is not clear
in Filing Nos. 122 (brief), 126, or 127 why or how the government possesses Defendant’s
state ID, phone, or wallet. All three documents were mailed after the pretrial motions
deadline lapsed and, thus, were presumptively untimely, so the government was not

18
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 19 of 32 - Page ID # 691

ordered to respond to Filing Nos. 126 or 127. Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on Filing
Nos. 126 and 127 in part until the government responds. The government shall respond
to Filing Nos. 126 and 127 within seven days of the date of this Order. Once obtaining the
government’s briefing on this issue (or the lapse of the deadline), the Court will determine
the propriety of an evidentiary hearing on these issues.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Susan M. Bazis, United States
District Judge, as follows:

1. The Court should deny Filing Nos. 16, 20, 36, 53, 60, 100, 110, and 128 in
full.
2. The Court should deny Filing Nos. 21, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 47, 55, 57, 58,
62, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,
108, 109, 112, 113, 114, 119, 120, 127, 129, and 132 in part, as is set forth
herein.
3. The Court should deny Filing No. 75 in part without prejudice, as is set forth
herein.

The Defendant is notified that failing to file an objection to this recommendation as
provided in the local rules of this Court may be held to be a waiver of any right to appeal
the Court’s adoption of the recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

1. Filing Nos. 19, 88, 92, 99, 101, 111, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 130,
131, and 133 are denied in full.
2. Filing Nos. 21, 22, 24, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 47, 50, 55, 57, 58, 62, 70, 71, 76,
79, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113,
114, 119, 120, 127, 129, and 132 are denied in part, as is set forth herein.
3. Filing Nos. 76, 77, and 126 are denied in part without prejudice, as is set
forth herein.
4. Filing Nos. 21, 22, and 33 are deemed withdrawn in part, as is set forth
herein.

19
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 20 of 32 - Page ID # 692

5. The Court defers ruling on Filing Nos. 50, 106, 107, 126, and 127 in part.
The government may respond to Filing Nos. 126 and 127 within seven
days of the date of this Order. These matters will not be deemed
submitted until this deadline lapses.
6. Filing No. 91 is granted in full. To the extent it has not already done so,
the government is ordered to comply with the disclosure requirements
set forth in this Court’s Progression Order. See Filing No. 12.
7. The Court construes the following filings as follows:
a. Filing No. 70 is a motion.
b. Page 12 of Filing No. 124 is a motion.
c. Page 14 of Filing No. 133 is a motion.
8. Motion to Suppress:
a. The Court construes the remaining portions of Filing Nos. 106, 107,
and 127 as Defendant’s amended motion to suppress.
b. The Court construes Filing Nos. 122 and 134 as Defendant’s briefs
in support of his pending motions, including his amended motion to
suppress.
c. Filing No. 76 is granted in part. Defendant’s request to extend his
deadline to file an amended motion to suppress is granted.
Defendant may file an amended motion to suppress on or
before August 16, 2024. If Defendant does not timely file an
amended motion to suppress, the Court will presume Defendant
intends to rely on Filing Nos. 106, 107, 122, 127, and 134 as his
motion to suppress.
d. The government may file a response to Defendant’s amended
motion to suppress on or before August 30, 2024. If the
government does not timely file a response, the Court will presume
the government intends to rely on its previously filed brief.
e. Filing No. 50 is granted in part. The Court will enter a separate
order setting the motion to suppress for an evidentiary hearing.

20
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 21 of 32 - Page ID # 693

Dated this 7th day of August, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca
United States Magistrate Judge

21
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 22 of 32 - Page ID # 694

ATTACHMENT A
Filing Argument Rulings by Argument Final Ruling on
Number Motion
16 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny.
(Part II).
19 Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). Denied.
Speedy trial. Denied. (III.E).
20 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny.
(II).
21 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied and deemed
should deny as frivolous. withdrawn in part,
(II). recommends Court
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). should deny
2. Withdraw not guilty remainder of motion.
plea.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
Consolidation. Denied. (III.C).
No longer seeking Deemed withdrawn. (III.C
consolidation. n.19).
22 Consolidation. Denied. (III.C). Denied in part;
No longer seeking Deemed withdrawn. (III.C deemed withdrawn in
consolidation. n.19). part.
24 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Subpoena. Denied. (III.D.i). remainder of motion.
29 Apply Nebraska state Denied. (I). Denied in part,
law. recommends Court
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court should deny the
should deny as frivolous. remainder of motion.
(II).
32 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II).

22
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 23 of 32 - Page ID # 695

Subpoena. Denied. (III.D.i). should deny the
remainder of motion.
33 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied and deemed
should deny as frivolous. withdrawn in part,
(II). recommends Court
Withdraw not guilty Denied as moot. (III.A). should deny
plea. remainder of motion.
Consolidation. Denied. (III.C).
No longer seeking Deemed withdrawn. (III.C.
consolidation. n.19).
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
34 Jurisdiction. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny. (I). recommends Court
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court should deny the
should deny as frivolous. remainder of motion.
(II).
Indictment fails to state Recommends Court
claim. should deny. (III.C).
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
35 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
36 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny motion.
(II).
Error in grand jury Recommends Court
proceeding. should deny. (III.B).

23
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 24 of 32 - Page ID # 696

47 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
should deny the
(II).
remainder of motion.
Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A).
Error in grand jury Recommends Court
proceeding. should deny. (III.B).
50 Evidentiary hearing. Granted in part, denied in Granted in part,
part, deferred ruling in part. denied in part, and
(I). deferred ruling in
part.
53 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny.
(II).
1. Vindictive Recommends Court
prosecution. should deny. (III.C).
2. Double jeopardy.
55 Evidentiary hearing. Denied as duplicative. (I). Denied in part,
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny the
(II). remainder of motion.
Reopen May 23 Denied as moot. (III.A).
detention hearing.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
57 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative. remainder of motion.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
58 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court remainder of motion.
should deny. (III.C).
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).

24
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 25 of 32 - Page ID # 697

First (superseded) Denied as moot. (III.D.ii).
motion to suppress.
Return of property. Denied as duplicative.
(III.E).
60 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny.
(II).
62 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.
Subpoena. Denied. (III.D.i).
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
70 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court 1. Court construes
should deny as frivolous. as a motion. (II
n.16).
(II).
2. Denied in part,
In forma pauperis. Denied as moot. (III.A). recommends
Court should deny
the remainder of
motion.
71 Good faith. Denied as moot. (I). Denied in part,
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court recommends Court
should deny as frivolous should deny the
(II). remainder of motion.
75 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny motion
(II). in limine argument
Error in grand jury Recommends Court without prejudice.
proceeding. should deny. (III.B). Recommends Court
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court should deny
should deny. (III.C). remainder of motion
Motion in Limine. Recommends Court with prejudice.
should deny without
prejudice. (III.D.ii).

25
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 26 of 32 - Page ID # 698

76 Jurisdiction. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny. (I). denied in part without
prejudice,
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court
recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny in part,
(II). granted in part.
Withdraw not guilty Denied as moot. (III.A).
plea.
1. Indictment fails to Recommends Court
state claim. should deny. (III.C).
2. Double jeopardy.
Continuance of motion Grant. (III.D.ii).
to suppress deadline.
Return of cash. Denied without prejudice.
(III.E).
77 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part
should deny as frivolous. without prejudice,
(II). recommends Court
Return of cash. Denied without prejudice. should deny
(III.E). remainder of motion.
79 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Subpoena. Denied. (III.D.i). remainder of motion.
88 Reopen May 23 Denied as moot. (III.A). Denied.
detention hearing.
91 Discovery. Granted. (III.D.i). Granted.
92 In forma pauperis. Denied as moot. (III.A). Denied.
93 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
Error in grand jury Recommends Court
proceeding. should deny. (III.B).
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
94 Evidentiary hearing. Denied as duplicative. (I).

26
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 27 of 32 - Page ID # 699

Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
95 Evidentiary hearing. Denied as duplicative. (I). Denied in part,
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny the
(II). remainder of motion.
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A).
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.
Error in grand jury Recommends Court
proceeding. should deny. (III.B).
96 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Reopen May 23 Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
detention hearing.
98 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court remainder of motion.
should deny. (III.C).
Return of property. Denied as duplicative.
(III.E).
99 In forma pauperis. Denied as moot. (III.A). Denied.
100 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny.
(II).
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
101 In forma pauperis. Denied as moot. (III.A) Denied.

27
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 28 of 32 - Page ID # 700

102 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II) should deny the
Subpoena. Denied. (III.D.i). remainder of motion.
103 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Subpoena. Denied. (III.D.i). remainder of motion.
104 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative. remainder of motion.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
105 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Quash government’s Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
motions.
106 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court 1. Denied in part.
should deny as frivolous. recommends
Court should deny
(II).
in part.
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). 2. Ruling on motion
2. Reopen May 23 to suppress
detention hearing. arguments
Error in grand jury Recommends Court deferred until fully
proceeding. should deny. (III.B). submitted.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
Amended motion to Ruling deferred. (III.D.ii).
suppress.
107 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court 1. Denied in part.
should deny as frivolous. Recommends
Court should deny
(II).
in part.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court 2. Ruling on motion
should deny. (III.C). to suppress
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative. arguments
limine relief. (III.D.ii).

28
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 29 of 32 - Page ID # 701

Amended motion to Ruling deferred. (III.D.ii). deferred until fully
suppress. submitted.
Return of property. Denied as duplicative.
(III.E).
108 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
109 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Reopen May 23 Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
detention hearing.
110 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny.
(II).
111 Withdraw not guilty Denied as moot. (III.A). Denied.
plea.
112 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
Reopen June 6 Denied. (III.B).
detention hearing.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
113 Evidentiary hearing. Denied as duplicative. (I). Denied in part,
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny the
(II). remainder of motion.
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A).
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.

29
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 30 of 32 - Page ID # 702

Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine relief. (III.D.ii).
114 Apply Nebraska state Denied. (I). Denied in part,
law. recommends Court
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court should deny the
should deny as frivolous. remainder of motion.
(II).
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A).
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
115 Reopen May 23 Denied as moot (III.A). Denied.
detention hearing.
116 Reopen May 23 Denied as moot (III.A). Denied.
detention hearing.
Return of property. Denied as duplicative.
(III.E).
117 Reopen May 23 Denied as moot (III.A). Denied.
detention hearing.
118 Reopen May 23 Denied as moot (III.A). Denied.
detention hearing.
119 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Reopen June 6 Denied. (III.B). remainder of motion.
detention hearing.
120 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
Reopen May 23 Denied as moot (III.A). remainder of motion.
detention hearing.
122 N/A N/A Court construes as a
brief.
123 Reopen May 23 Denied as moot (III.A). Denied.
detention hearing.

30
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 31 of 32 - Page ID # 703

124 In forma pauperis. Denied as moot. (III.A) 1. Court construes
page 12 as a
motion.
2. Denied.
125 Withdraw injunctions. Denied as moot. (III.A) Denied.

126 Return of cash. Denied in part without Denied in part
prejudice. (III.E). without prejudice.
Return of other Ruling deferred. (III.E). Ruling on remainder
property. of motion deferred
until fully submitted.
127 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court 1. Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends
Court should deny
(II).
in part.
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative. 2. Ruling on motion
limine relief. (III.D.ii). to suppress
Amended motion to Ruling deferred. (III.D.ii). arguments
deferred until fully
suppress. submitted.
Return of other Ruling deferred. (III.E). 3. Ruling on motion
property. to return property
arguments
deferred until fully
submitted.
128 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Recommends Court
should deny as frivolous. should deny.
(II).
129 Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court Denied in part,
should deny as frivolous. recommends Court
(II). should deny the
1. Preliminary hearing. Denied as moot. (III.A). remainder of motion.
2. Reopen May 23
detention hearing.
Reopen June 6 Denied. (III.B).
detention hearing.
Double jeopardy. Recommends Court
should deny. (III.C).
Prayer for motion in Denied as duplicative.
limine and motion to (III.D.ii).
suppress relief.

31
4:24-cr-03048-SMB-JMD Doc # 135 Filed: 08/07/24 Page 32 of 32 - Page ID # 704

130 In forma pauperis. Denied as moot. (III.A) Denied.
131 Reopen June 6 Denied. (III.B). Denied.
detention hearing.
132 Apply Nebraska state Denied. (I). Denied in part,
law. recommends Court
Sovereign citizen. Recommends Court should deny the
should deny as frivolous. remainder of motion.
(II).
133 In forma pauperis. Denied as moot. (III.A) 1. Court construes
page 14 as a
motion.
2. Denied.

134 N/A N/A Court construes as a
brief.

File and source

File: 135.pdf
Size: 377,723 bytes
SHA-256: 7bb74f3915228117784f39308922f258cf524931b1d4e4e548f4d7f8c53d03a0
Our copy: 135.pdf
Original: archive.org