Full text
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 125 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America, Case No. 22-cr-124 (NEB/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Abdiaziz Shafii Farah et al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Designate
Case as Complex Under the Speedy Trial Act, ECF No. 111.
The Government “moves the Court for an order designating the above-captioned
matter as a complex case for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and (iv).” ECF No. 111 at 1. In its motion, the Government
represents that this case is unusual and complex in that the indicted conduct involves the
prosecution of a massive fraudulent scheme to obtain and misappropriate more than $250
million in federal child nutrition program funds.
The Government reports that the discovery in this matter is exceptionally
voluminous and includes millions of pages of investigative materials. “[T]he grand jury
issued more than 600 subpoenas,” and “[t]he responses to these subpoenas include
financial statements and other records for hundreds of bank accounts and credit card
merchant accounts.” ECF No. 111 at 3. “The [G]overnment interviewed hundreds of
witnesses and individuals involved in the fraud scheme, and will be producing hundreds
1
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 125 Filed 09/29/22 Page 2 of 5
of reports documenting those interviews.” ECF No. 111 at 3. “The [G]overnment
obtained and executed physical search warrants for 32 businesses and residences,” during
which “the [G]overnment seized approximately 380 electronic devices, including
computers, laptops, and cell phones.” ECF No. 111 at 3. “The [G]overnment also
obtained warrants to search more than 45 email accounts, through which the
[G]overnment obtained more than 250,000 emails relevant to the investigation.” ECF
No. 111 at 3.
Currently, this case and related cases involve close to 50 defendants. 1 Under the
Speedy Trial Act, a defendant must “be tried within seventy days after being charged or
initially appearing, unless the running of time is stopped for reasons set forth under the
statute.” United States v. Izazaga-Pascacio, No. 14-cr-289 (SRN/JSM), 2016 WL
287062, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2016); see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1); see also Zedner v.
United States, 547 U.S. 489, 497-98 (2006). The Speedy Trial Act permits the exclusion
of
[a]ny period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by
any judge on his own motion or at the request of the
defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for
the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the
basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking
such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the
defendant in a speedy trial.
1
United States v. Abdiaziz Shafii Farah et al., No. 22-cr-124 (NEB/TNL) (8 defendants); United States v. Liban
Yasin Alishire et al., No. 22-cr-222 (NEB/TNL) (3 defendants); United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., No. 22-cr-
223 (NEB/TNL) (14 defendants); United States v. Qamar Ahmed Hassan et al., No. 22-cr-224 (NEB/TNL) (8
defendants); United States v. Sharmake Jama et al., No. 22-cr-225 (NEB/TNL) (6 defendants); United States v. Haji
Osman Salad et al., No. 22-cr-226 (NEB/TNL) (5 defendants); United States v. Hanna Marakegn, No. 22-cr-236
(NEB); United States v. Bekam Adissu Merdassa, No. 22-cr-237 (NEB); and United States v. Hadith Yusuf Ahmed,
No. 22-cr-238 (NEB).
2
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 125 Filed 09/29/22 Page 3 of 5
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
Factors to be considered in determining whether to grant such a continuance
include, among others:
(i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the
proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such
proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice.
(ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the
number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the
existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is
unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial
proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits
established by this section.
...
(iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case
which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to
fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendant reasonable
time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably deny the
defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or would
deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the
Government the reasonable time necessary for effective
preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
Id. § 3161(h)(7)(B).
After due consideration, the Court will designate this matter (as well as related
matters 2) as complex under § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Given the large volume of discovery, the
nature of the evidence collected, and the multiple issues involved in the discovery
process, as well as the sheer number of defendants, this case and the related cases are so
2
United States v. Abdiaziz Shafii Farah et al., No. 22-cr-124 (NEB/TNL) (8 defendants); United States v. Liban
Yasin Alishire et al., No. 22-cr-222 (NEB/TNL) (3 defendants); United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., No. 22-cr-
223 (NEB/TNL) (14 defendants); United States v. Qamar Ahmed Hassan et al., No. 22-cr-224 (NEB/TNL) (8
defendants); United States v. Sharmake Jama et al., No. 22-cr-225 (NEB/TNL) (6 defendants); United States v. Haji
Osman Salad et al., No. 22-cr-226 (NEB/TNL) (5 defendants).
3
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 125 Filed 09/29/22 Page 4 of 5
complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings
and for the trial itself within the time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act. The Court
further finds that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the ends of justice served by
making this designation and granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the
public and Defendants in a speedy trial and the failure to grant a continuance would deny
the parties the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the
exercise of due diligence.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Government’s Motion to Designate Case as Complex Under the
Speedy Trial Act, ECF No. 111, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
2. This case is “complex” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
3. The deadlines set forth in the Court’s September 23, 2022 Arraignment
Orders, ECF Nos. 105, 106, are STRICKEN.
4. On before November 4, 2022, the parties shall have met and conferred
and submitted a proposed case management schedule for the completion of
pretrial proceedings, to include disclosures by the Government; disclosures
by Defendants; and the filing of pretrial motions, responses to such
motions, notices of intent to call witnesses, and responsive notices of
intent to call witnesses.
5. The Court will thereafter issue a separate case management order, setting
forth, among other things, pre-trial deadlines and the motions hearing date.
[Continued on next page.]
4
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-TNL Doc. 125 Filed 09/29/22 Page 5 of 5
6. The period of time from September 27 through November 4, 2022, shall
be excluded from Speedy Trial Act computations in this case. See 18
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
Date: September 29 , 2022 s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
United States v. Farah et al.
Case No. 22-cr-124 (NEB/TNL)
5