Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order — No. 1:24-cr-00323 (Dkt. 124, D.D.C.)

Order — No. 1:24-cr-00323 (Dkt. 124, D.D.C.)

Summary

An order to show cause in United States v. Jose Biaou, Case No. 24-cr-323 (CRC), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, filed July 13, 2026 as Document 124 (3 pages), with the signature block of Judge Christopher R. Cooper. The Court states that a jury convicted the defendant on February 17, 2026 of six counts of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft, and that his counsel later filed four motions (ECF Nos. 118-23) without signing them. It orders him to show cause in writing by July 15, 2026 why the motions should not be stricken under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(b)(4), and stays the government's deadline to respond to them.

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

“Order — No. 1:24-cr-00323 (Dkt. 124, D.D.C.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-no-1-24-cr-00323-dkt-124-d-d-c-d2c3fa6b49/, SHA-256 bfdbf7be17834edc16122f27679a8f0d2e195a3d0937b4cd7d70543f1fe8b80a.

Full text

       Case 1:24-cr-00323-CRC           Document 124         Filed 07/13/26      Page 1 of 3




                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                        v.
                                                      Case No. 24-cr-323 (CRC)
 JOSE BIAOU,

                        Defendant.

                                             ORDER

       On February 17, 2026, a jury convicted Defendant Jose Biaou of six counts of wire fraud

and one count of aggravated identity theft. His sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for

August 4, 2026. Several months after his trial concluded, Biaou’s counsel filed four motions,

including (1) a motion to “dismiss the Wire Fraud counts of the Superseding Indictment . . . for

lack of jurisdiction”; (2) a motion seeking the return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 41(g); (3) a motion seeking miscellaneous relief under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

83 (1963), and Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978); and (4) a motion to “stay” his

sentencing hearing and related deadlines pending the resolution of his other three motions. See

generally ECF Nos. 118–23. But Biaou’s counsel did not sign any of the motions. Instead, his

counsel filed the motions “at the direction of Jose Biaou,” citing “the Court’s order at the hearing

on February 2, 2026.”

       Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(b)(4) provides that “[e]very written motion and

other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name.” The rule

further states that “[t]he court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly

corrected after being called to the attorney’s or person’s attention.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(a) (same). Accordingly, Biaou is ordered to show cause in writing why the motions should

not be stricken for failure to comply with Rule 49.
       Case 1:24-cr-00323-CRC           Document 124         Filed 07/13/26      Page 2 of 3




       The Court anticipates that in response to this show-cause order, Biaou’s counsel may cite

various statements made by the Court at a status conference held shortly before trial. At that

conference, the Court addressed Biaou’s pro se motion for leave to file multiple pro se motions

while he was simultaneously represented by the Federal Public Defender’s Office. After a brief

ex parte discussion, the Court instructed Biaou’s counsel to file Biaou’s pro se motions on his

behalf so that the Court could resolve them before jury selection began the following week. The

Court’s order was based on the particular circumstances present at that time, including the

proximity to trial and Biaou’s separate motion to continue his trial date. At no point did the

Court issue a standing order permitting Biaou’s counsel to file pro se motions on his behalf. And

it certainly did not grant Biaou leave to file multiple pro se motions five months after his trial

concluded with across-the-board convictions.

       For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

       ORDERED that Defendant show cause, in writing, by July 15, 2026, why the Court

should not strike Defendant’s [118] Motion to Dismiss Wire Fraud Counts, [119] Motion for

Return of Seized Property, [120] Post-Trial Motion for Production of Brady Material, for a

Franks Hearing, and to Dismiss, and [123] Motion to Stay Sentencing and Related Deadlines for

failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(b)(4). It is further




                                                  2
         Case 1:24-cr-00323-CRC      Document 124        Filed 07/13/26    Page 3 of 3




         ORDERED that the government’s deadline to respond to Defendant’s [118] Motion to

Dismiss Wire Fraud Counts, [119] Motion for Return of Seized Property, [120] Post-Trial

Motion for Production of Brady Material, for a Franks Hearing, and to Dismiss, and

[123] Motion to Stay Sentencing and Related Deadlines is STAYED pending further order of the

Court.

         SO ORDERED.




                                                          CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                          United States District Judge

Date: July 13, 2026




                                              3

File and source

File
124.pdf
Size
195,480 bytes
SHA-256
bfdbf7be17834edc16122f27679a8f0d2e195a3d0937b4cd7d70543f1fe8b80a
Our copy
124.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top