Plea Agreement as to Abdihakim Ali Ahmed — USA v. Bock et al (Dkt. 609, D. Minn.)

Summary

In this plea agreement filed 03/24/25 in the District of Minnesota (Criminal No. 22-223(7)), Abdihakim Ali Ahmed agrees to plead guilty to Count 12, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and Count 58, money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and the United States agrees to move to dismiss the remaining charges. In the factual basis Ahmed admits taking part, from in or about September 2020 through in or about January 2022, in a scheme to defraud the federal child nutrition program through the ASA Limited site sponsored by Feeding Our Future. It states a loss of approximately $7.3 million and approximately $49,000 in kickbacks paid to Feeding Our Future employee Abdikerm Eidleh. The parties state that if the adjusted offense level is 28, the Guidelines range is 46 - 57 months.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Criminal No. 22-223(7) (NEB/DTS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, PLEA AGREEMENT AND
SENTENCING STIPULATIONS

Vv.
ABDIHAKIM ALI AHMED,
Defendant.

1. The United States of America and the defendant Abdihakim Ali Ahmed
agree to resolve this case on the terms and conditions that follow. This plea agreement
binds only the defendant and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Minnesota. This agreement does not bind any other United States Attorney’s Office
or any other federal or state agency.

2. Charges. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count 12 of the
Indictment, which charges the defendant with wire fraud, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343, and Count 58, which charges the defendant with
money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957. The
defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with which he has
been charged. At the time of sentencing, the United States agrees to move to dismiss
the remaining charges against him in the Indictment.

3. Factual Basis. The defendant is pleading guilty because he is in fact

guilty of Count 12 and Count 58 of the Indictment. In pleading guilty, the defendant

admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable

| MAR 25 202 f
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 Filed 03/24/25 Page 2 of 14

doubt and constitute relevant conduct pursuant to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines:

From in or about September 2020 through in or about January 2022, the
defendant knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the federal child nutrition
program, a program designed to provide free meals to children in need. The defendant
and his co-conspirators obtained, misappropriated, and laundered millions of dollars
in program funds that were intended as reimbursements for the cost of serving meals
to children. The defendants exploited changes in the program intended to ensure
underserved children received adequate nutrition during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Rather than feed children, the defendants took advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic—
and the resulting program changes—to enrich themselves by fraudulently
misappropriating millions of dollars in federal child nutrition program funds.

As part of the scheme, on or about September 4, 2020, the defendant registered
ASA Limited LLC with the Minnesota Secretary of State. Four days later, the
defendant applied for ASA Limited to operate a purported food site in the Federal
Children Nutrition Program under the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future at the
Gurey Deli, a small market located ina strip mall in St. Paul (the “ASA Limited site”).
The defendant submitted his application together with Aimee Bock, Feeding Our
Future’s executive director. Within just three weeks of creating the ASA Limited site,
the defendant and his co-conspirators claimed to be serving meals to 2,000 or 3,000

children each day, seven days a week.
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 3 of 14

During the one-year period from September 2020 to September 2021, the
defendant and his co-conspirators claimed to have served more than 1.6 million meals
at the ASA Limited site. In support of these claims, the defendant and his co-
conspirators prepared and submitted fraudulent meal counts and invoices. For
example, as alleged in Count 12 of the indictment, on November 4, 2021, the
defendant emailed Aimee Bock fraudulent meal counts and a fake attendance roster,
which traveled interstate.

The defendant submitted multiple fake attendance rosters that purported to
identify both the names and ages of approximately 2,000 children who attended the
ASA Limited site’s “after-school program” in September through December 2021. The
lists of names and ages were fake. The defendant’s roster spreadsheets contained a
formula that inserted a random number between 7 and 17 in the age column for each
“child” on the list.

The defendant also paid approximately $49,000 in kickbacks from ASA
Limited LLC to Abdikerm Eidleh, the Feeding Our Future employee who served as
the site support manager for the ASA Limited site. These payments were made to
entities controlled by Eidleh, in order to disguise the nature of the kickback payments
and to make them appear legitimate.

Rather than use fraudulently obtained money to serve meals or feed children,
the defendant and his conspirators fraudulently misappropriated much of it. The

defendant transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to himself and other co-
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 4 of 14

conspirators, which included transferring fraud proceeds to a shell company the
defendant created called 1130 Holdings Inc.

Also, the defendant and other co-conspirators created another shell company
called Five A’s Projects LLC. As alleged in Count 58 of the indictment, on or about
October 22, 2021, in the State and District of Minnesota and elsewhere, the defendant
knowingly engaged in a monetary transaction by, through, or to a financial
institution, affecting interstate or foreign commerce, in criminally derived property
of a value greater than $10,000, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1957, namely, the transfer of more than $1 million in Federal Child Nutrition
Program funds to Five A’s Projects LLC, which they used to purchase the former
location of Kelly’s 19th Hole, a bar and restaurant in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota.

Ultimately, based on fraudulent claims throughout the conspiracy, the
defendant and his co-conspirators caused a loss of approximately $7.3 million to the
Federal Child Nutrition Program reimbursements for meals purportedly served to
children. Feeding Our Future received more than $400,000 in administrative fees for
sponsoring the ASA Limited site’s fraudulent participation in the program.

4. Waiver of Pretrial Motions. The defendant understands and agrees

that he has certain rights to file pre-trial motions in this case. As part of the plea
agreement, and based upon concessions of the United States within this plea
agreement, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily gives up the right to
file any pre-trial motions in this case. The defendant agrees that, by pleading guilty,

he is withdrawing any motions previously filed.
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 5 of 14

5. Waiver of Constitutional Trial Rights. The defendant understands

that he has the right to go to trial. At trial, the defendant would be presumed
innocent, have the right to trial by jury or, with the consent of the United States and
of the Court, to trial by the Court, the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses to
testify for the defense, the right to testify and present evidence, and the right to be
protected from compelled self-incrimination. The defendant understands that he has
the right to an attorney at every stage of these proceedings and, if necessary, one will
be appointed to represent him. The defendant understands that he has the right to
persist in a plea of not guilty and, if he does so, he would have the right to a public
and speedy trial. By pleading guilty, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and
voluntarily waives each of these trial rights, except the right to counsel. The
defendant understands that a guilty plea is a complete and final admission of guilt
and, if the Court accepts the guilty plea, the Court will adjudge the defendant guilty
without a trial.

6. Additional Consequences. The defendant understands that as a

result of his conviction, he could experience additional consequences, such as the loss
of the right to carry firearms, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office. If
the defendant is not a United States citizen, as a result of a plea of guilty, the
defendant may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and/or denied
admission to the United States in the future. The defendant has discussed with his

attorney the punishments and consequences of pleading guilty, understands that not
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 6 of 14

all of the consequences can be predicted or foreseen, and still wants to plead guilty in

this case.

7. Statutory Penalties. The parties agree that wire fraud, as charged in

Count 12 of the Indictment, carries statutory penalties of:

a. a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years in prison;
b. a supervised release term of up to three years;
c. a fine of up to $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss from the

offense, whichever is greater;

d. assessment to the defendant of the costs of prosecution as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1918(b) and 1920; and

e. a mandatory special assessment of $100 under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3013(a)(2)(A).

The defendant understands that Count 58 of the Indictment, charging money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, is a felony offense that carries the
following statutory penalties:

a. a maximum of 10 years in prison;

b. a supervised release term up to a maximum
supervised release term of 3 years;

C. a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice amount of the criminally
derived property, whichever is greatest;

d. restitution to victims as agreed to by the parties in this
agreement;
e. a mandatory special assessment of $100 under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3013(a)(2)(A);
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 7 of 14

8. Revocation of Supervised Release. The defendant understands that

if he were to violate any supervised release condition while on supervised release, the
Court could revoke his supervised release, and the defendant could be sentenced to
an additional term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.4, 7B1.5. The defendant also understands
that as part of any revocation, the Court may include a requirement that he be placed
on an additional term of supervised release after imprisonment, as set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3583(h).

9. Guidelines Calculations. The parties acknowledge that the defendant

will be sentenced in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3551, et seq. Nothing in this plea
agreement should be construed to limit the parties from presenting any and all
relevant evidence to the Court at sentencing. The parties also acknowledge that the
Court will consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines in determining the
appropriate sentence and stipulate to the following guideline calculations:

a. Base Offense Level. The parties agree that for Count 12 the base
offense level is 7. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1).

The parties agree that for Count 58 the base offense level is the
offense level for the underlying offense from which the laundered
funds were derived, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 281.1(a)(1). Therefore,
the base offense level for Count 58 is 7 as calculated under Count
12.

b. Specific Offense Characteristics. The parties agree that for Count
12 an 18-level enhancement applies pursuant to Guidelines
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) because the loss was more than $3.5 million but
not more than $9.5 million. The parties agree that the offense
level should be increased by 2 levels because the offense involved
conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040 (Fraud in Connection with
a Major Disaster or Emergency Benefits). The parties agree that
no other specific offense adjustments apply.

7
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 8 of 14

The parties agree that for Count 58 a one-level enhancement
applies pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A) because defendant
was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1957.

c. Chapter 3 Adjustments. The parties agree that Count 12 and
Count 58 of the Indictment are grouped together into a single
group because both counts embody conduct that is treated as a
specific offense characteristic in the guideline applicable to the
other count. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c). Therefore, the offense level
applicable to the group will be the highest offense level of the
counts in the group, which would be 28. The parties agree that no
Chapter 3 adjustments apply.

d. Acceptance of Responsibility. The government agrees to
recommend that the defendant receive a 2-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). As
the defendant has timely notified the government of his intention
to enter a plea of guilty, the government agrees to recommend
that the defendant receive an additional 1-level reduction
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 83E1.1(b). Whether these reductions will be
imposed shall be determined by the Court in its discretion.
However, the defendant understands and agrees that the
government’s recommendations are conditioned upon the
following: (1) the defendant testifies truthfully during the change
of plea and sentencing hearings; (2) the defendant provides full,
complete and truthful information to the United States Probation
Office in the pre-sentence investigation; and (3) the defendant
engages in no conduct inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility before the time of sentencing, including frivolously
denying facts in the Presentence Report. Nothing in this
agreement limits the right of the government, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 83E1.1 and/or § 3C1.1 to seek denial of a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility or an enhancement for obstruction of
justice should the defendant engage in any conduct inconsistent
with acceptance of responsibility, including moving to withdraw
his guilty plea after it is entered.

e. Criminal History Category. The parties believe that, at the time
of sentencing, the defendant will fall into Criminal History
Category I. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. This does not constitute a
stipulation, but a belief based on an assessment of the
information currently known. The defendant’s actual criminal
history and related status will be determined by the Court based
on the information presented in the Presentence Report and by
the parties at the time of sentencing. The defendant understands

8
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 9 of 14

that if the presentence investigation reveals any prior adult or
juvenile sentence which should be included within his criminal
history under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant will
be sentenced based on his true criminal history category, and he
will not be permitted to withdraw from this Plea Agreement.
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.

f. Zero-Point Offender Adjustment. Because the defendant has zero
criminal-history points and no disqualifying conduct, the parties
agree the defendant qualifies for a 2-level adjustment under
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.

g. Guidelines Range. If the adjusted offense level is 28, and the
criminal history category is I, the Sentencing Guidelines range is
46 - 57 months of imprisonment.

h. Fine Range. If the adjusted offense level is 28, the Sentencing
Guidelines fine range is $20,000 to $200,000. U.S.S.G.
§ 5E1.2(c)(8).

10. Discretion of the Court. The foregoing stipulations are binding on

the parties, but do not bind the Court. The parties understand that the Sentencing
Guidelines are advisory and their application is a matter that falls solely within the
Court’s discretion. The Court may make its own determination regarding the
applicable guideline factors and the applicable criminal history category. The Court
may also depart from the applicable Guidelines. If the Court determines that the
applicable guideline calculations or the defendant’s criminal history category are
different from that stated above, such a determination shall not provide a basis for
the parties to withdraw from this agreement, and the defendant will be sentenced
pursuant to the Court’s determinations.

11. Agreements as to Sentencing Recommendation. The parties are

free to recommend whatever sentence they deem appropriate. The parties reserve the
right to make a motion for departures from the applicable Guidelines range pursuant

9
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 10 of 14

to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to oppose any such motion made by the opposing party, and to
argue for a sentence outside the applicable Guidelines range. If the Court does not
accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, the defendant will have no right

to withdraw his guilty plea.

12. Special Assessment. The Sentencing Guidelines require payment ofa
special assessment in the amount of $100 for each felony count of which the defendant
is convicted. U.S.S.G. § 51.3. The defendant agrees that the special assessment is
due and payable at the time of sentencing.

13. Restitution Agreement. The defendant understands and agrees that

the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, applies and that the Court
is required to order the defendant to make restitution to the victims of his crime. The
defendant understands and agrees the Court may order the defendant to make
restitution to any victim of the scheme regardless of whether the victim was named
in the Indictment. The defendant agrees that he owes restitution in the amount of
$2,242,590.

14. Disclosure of Assets. The defendant will fully and completely disclose

to the United States Attorney’s Office the existence and location of any assets in
which the Defendant has any right, title, or interest, or over which the defendant
exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those assets held by a spouse,
nominee or other third party, or any business owned or controlled by the defendant.
The defendant agrees to assist the United States in identifying, locating, returning,

and transferring assets for use in payment of fines and/or forfeiture ordered by the

10
Court. The Defendant agrees to complete a financial statement within two weeks of
the entry of his guilty plea. The defendant further agrees to execute any releases that
may be necessary for the United States to obtain information concerning the
defendant’s assets and expressly authorizes the United States to obtain a credit
report on the defendant to evaluate his ability to satisfy financial obligations imposed
by the Court. If requested by the United States, the defendant agrees to submit to
one or more asset interviews or depositions under oath.

15. Forfeiture. The defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(©), all property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to wire fraud, as
charged in Count 12 of the Indictment, including but not limited to:

(1) The real property located at 8432 Noble Avenue, North Brooklyn Park,
Minnesota, known previously as Kelly’s 19th Hole;

(2) a 2022 Mini Cooper S Countryman, VIN: WMZ83BRO9N38N389411; and

(3) $1,231.07 seized from Bell Bank, account No. 6521110434, in the name
of ASA Limited LLC.

The Defendant agrees that the United States may, at its option, forfeit the
Property through civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, waives any deadline
or statute of limitations for the initiation of any such proceedings, and abandons any
interest he may have in the property. The Defendant waives all statutory and
constitutional defenses to the forfeiture and waives any right to contest or challenge
(including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other means) such forfeiture, directly

or through any company he owns or controls, on any grounds.

11
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 12 of 14

The Defendant consents to the entry of a money judgment forfeiture in the
amount of $2,242,590, which represents the amount of proceeds he obtained from the
wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 12 of the Indictment. The defendant will receive
a credit against the money judgment forfeiture for the net value of all property that
is forfeited from him in this matter. The United States reserves the right to seek
forfeiture of substitute assets and any additional directly forfeitable property.

16. Waivers of Appeal and Collateral Attack. The parties hereby waive

the right to appeal any non-jurisdictional issues. This appeal waiver includes, but is
not limited to: the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal guilt or innocence, any
issues relating to the negotiation, taking or acceptance of the guilty plea, the sentence
imposed or any issues that relate to the calculation of the Guidelines range, the
supervised-release term and conditions imposed, any restitution obligations, and the
constitutionality of the statutes to which the defendant is pleading guilty. The
parties agree, however, that excluded from this waiver is an appeal by defendant of
the substantive reasonableness of a term of imprisonment above the top of the
Guidelines range, and an appeal by the government of the substantive
reasonableness of a term of imprisonment below the bottom of the Guidelines range.

The defendant also waives the right to collaterally attack his conviction and
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except based upon a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. This collateral-review waiver does not operate to waive a collateral
challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on new legal principles enunciated in

Supreme Court case law decided after the date of this Plea Agreement that are both

12
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609 _ Filed 03/24/25 Page 13 of 14

substantive and have retroactive effect. For purposes of this provision, legal
principles that are substantive and retroactive are those that narrow the reach of the
offense of conviction and render the defendant’s conduct non-criminal or that render
the sentence imposed illegal.

17. The defendant has discussed these rights with the defendant’s attorney.
The defendant understands the rights being waived, and the defendant waives these
rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

18.: FOIA Requests. The defendant waives all rights to obtain, directly or

through others, information about the investigation and prosecution of this case
under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552,
552A.

19. Complete Agreement. This, along with any agreement signed by the

parties before entry of plea, is the entire agreement and understanding between the
United States and the defendant. By signing this plea agreement, the defendant
acknowledges: (a) that the defendant has read the entire agreement and has reviewed
every part of it with the defendant’s counsel; (b) that the defendant fully understands
this plea agreement; (c) that no promises, agreements, understandings, or conditions
have been made or entered into in connection with his decision to plead guilty, except
those set forth in this plea agreement; (d) that the defendant is satisfied with the
legal services and representation provided by defense counsel in connection with this

plea agreement and matters related to it; (e) that the defendant has entered into this

13
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 609

Filed 03/24/25 Page 14 of 14

plea agreement freely, voluntarily, and knowingly; and (f) that the defendant’s

decision to plead guilty in accord with the terms and conditions of this plea agreement

is made of the defendant’s own free will.
Dated:

BY:

14

LISA D. KIRKPATRICK

“VY x Attorney
/ Va HEE /

JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
MATTHEW S. EBERT

HARRY M. JACOBS

DANIEL W. BOBIER

Assistant United States Attorneys

ABDIHAKIM ALI AHMED

| /

JANEAWNE MURRAY
Counsel|for Defendant


File and source

File

609-plea-agreement-as-to-abdihakim-ali-ahmed.pdf

Size

11,566,843 bytes

SHA-256

f91e04cf02a38c642cd332378538b4a7470f78d5150036b025b25ac82811427b

Our copy

609-plea-agreement-as-to-abdihakim-ali-ahmed.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)