Government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Defense Exhibits — No. 1:20-cr-10130 (Dkt. 142, D. Mass.)

Summary

The Government's Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Defense Exhibits, Document 142, filed February 17, 2022 in United States v. Elijah Majak Buoi, Criminal No. 20-cr-10130-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government asks for a ruling that certain defense exhibits are not relevant to the conduct charged, describing them as slide decks and a list on purported projects of the defendant's company Sosuda Tech, LLC, draft contracts and proposed agreements from 2021, and a list of purported Sosuda Tech clients. It argues under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 that, because the issue is whether the defendant submitted false PPP loan applications between April 2020 and June 2020, later projects and contracts are not a fact of consequence. A table lists the exhibits by number and Bates range.

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 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 142 Filed 02/17/22 Page 1 of 4




                             IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                             )
                                                     )
                                                     )
        v.                                           )        Criminal No. 20-cr-10130-FDS
                                                     )
ELIJAH MAJAK BUOI,                                   )
                                                     )
                          Defendant                  )

             GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN
                            DEFENSE EXHIBITS

        The government, by and through the undersigned attorneys, hereby seeks an in limine

ruling from the Court that certain defense exhibits should be excluded because they are not relevant

to the conduct charged.

                                               BACKGROUND

        Approximately 17 months after the government first requested reciprocal discovery, five

days after the defendant’s exhibit list was due, and one week prior to the start of trial, the defendant

Elijah Buoi filed an exhibit list and produced discovery to the government for the first time, labeled

as defense exhibits. The defense exhibits consist of 18 documents, a number of which either lack

dates or postdate the conduct charged in the Indictment. The exhibits the government seeks to

exclude consist of (1) slide decks and/or PowerPoints and a list concerning purported corporate

projects of the defendant’s company, Sosuda Tech, LLC (Exs. 7, 11, 12-18)1, (2) draft contracts

and proposed agreements that are from the year 2021 (Exs. 6, 8), and (3) a list of purported Sosuda




1
  Although these documents lack dates, Exhibits 7, 11, 15 and 18 each contain the defendant’s email address or
business address. Based upon the government’s prior investigation, both the use of the email address and the business
location notated in these exhibits appear to post-date the defendant’s arrest.

                                                         1
         Case 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 142 Filed 02/17/22 Page 2 of 4




Tech clients that appear to delineate clients retained during the pandemic, clients lost during the

pandemic, and clients that were recently acquired (Ex. 5).

                                         ARGUMENT

       Federal Rule of Evidence 401 establishes that evidence must be relevant to be admissible.

The test for whether evidence is relevant is whether (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or

less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in

determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Thus, for evidence to be relevant it must move the

inquiry forward to some degree on a fact of consequence. Bielunas v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc., 621

F.3d 72, 76 (1st Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). Likewise, “irrelevant evidence is not

admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402.

       At issue in this case is whether the defendant submitted false PPP loan applications

between April 2020 and June 2020. Whether the defendant’s company had projects or contracts

in 2021, a year after the defendant submitted the false loans, is not a fact of consequence in

assessing the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Similarly, whether the defendant’s company retained

clients or entered into contracts after he was charged is not relevant to whether the defendant

fabricated information in loan applications--like the number of employees and payroll his company

had in 2019 or 2020. As such, the government respectfully submits that the following exhibits

should be excluded:

           Exhibit No.     Bates No.

           5               EB006-EB008

           6               EB009-EB025

           7               EB026-EB054

           8               EB055


                                                2
         Case 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 142 Filed 02/17/22 Page 3 of 4




           11               EB188-EB214

           12               EB215-EB255

           13               EB256-EB257

           14               EB258-EB270

           15               EB271-EB290

           16               EB291-EB298

           17               EB299-EB304

           18               EB305-EB326


       While typically the government may wait until the attempted introduction of exhibits to

object on relevance grounds, the government understands that these exhibits will be introduced by

the defendant in his direct testimony. The government therefore seeks a court ruling in advance

because it would be prejudiced by lodging repeated objections in front of the jury during the

defendant’s testimony.

                                        CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, the United States of America respectfully requests that the Court

grant the relief requested herein.

        Respectfully Submitted,

        RACHAEL S. ROLLINS                                 JOSEPH S. BEEMSTERBOER
        U. S. ATTORNEY                                     ACTING CHIEF, FRAUD SECTION

 By:     /s/ Mackenzie Queenin
         Mackenzie Queenin                          By:    /s/ Della Sentilles
         Assistant United States Attorney                  Della Sentilles
         U.S. Attorney’s Office                            Trial Attorney, Fraud Section
         One Courthouse Way                                U.S. Department of Justice
         Boston, MA 02210                                  1400 New York Ave NW
                                                           Washington, DC 20530


                                                3
         Case 1:20-cr-10130-FDS Document 142 Filed 02/17/22 Page 4 of 4




                                      Certificate of Service

       I, Mackenzie A. Queenin, hereby certify that this document was this day filed through the
ECF system and will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice
of Electronic Filing (“NEF”).


Date: February 17, 2022                                        /s/ Mackenzie A. Queenin
                                                               Mackenzie A. Queenin




                                                 4


File and source

File

142.pdf

Size

119,909 bytes

SHA-256

abdc6ecaa388031e861801c30644de2f45fdd212594db652d0f5bc55cbe1a118

Our copy

142.pdf

Original

archive.org