Order — United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/TNL) (D. Minn.)
Summary
In this order, filed 09/29/22 as Doc. 95 in United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., Case No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/TNL) in the District of Minnesota, Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung grants in part and denies in part the government's motion to designate the case as complex under the Speedy Trial Act. The order recites the government's representations that the case involves a fraud to obtain more than $250 million in federal child nutrition program funds and more than 600 grand jury subpoenas, and the court notes that this case and related cases involve close to 50 defendants. The court designates this case and related matters complex under § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), strikes the September 23, 2022 arraignment order deadlines, directs a proposed case management schedule by November 4, 2022, and excludes September 27 through November 4, 2022 from Speedy Trial Act computations.
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. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America, Case No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/TNL)
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
Aimee Marie Bock 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. 90.
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. 90 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. 90 at 3. “The [G]overnment interviewed hundreds of witnesses and
individuals involved in the fraud scheme, and will be producing hundreds of reports
1
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 2 of 5
documenting those interviews.” ECF No. 90 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. 90 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. 90 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.
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
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-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 3 of 5
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 complex
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-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 95 Filed 09/29/22 Page 4 of 5
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. 90, 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. 88, 89, 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-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 95 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. Bock et al.
Case No. 22-cr-223 (NEB/TNL)
5
File and source
- File
- uscourts-mnd-0-22-cr-00223-0.pdf
- Size
- 253,440 bytes
- SHA-256
- eeb9d55c8b6fd4ed4cbb0990b32f48bf2a928a1dc483e54079c837241c2f0465
- Our copy
- uscourts-mnd-0-22-cr-00223-0.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.