United States v. Mustafa Dayib Ali — Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations (D. Minn., Dkt. 87)

Summary

Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations between the United States and Mustafa Dayib Ali in Criminal No. 25-349 (JWB), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Doc. 87, filed July 23, 2026. Ali agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the Indictment, which charges wire fraud, and the United States agrees to move to dismiss the remaining charges. The factual basis states that the defendant was an owner of Brillant Minds Services, LLC, which claimed services to approximately 350 beneficiaries of the Housing Stabilization Services ("HSS") program, a Medicaid program. The parties stipulate a base offense level of 7, a loss of at least $1.5 million but not more than $2,253,385, and a Guidelines range of 33-41 months at adjusted offense level 20 or 27-33 months at level 18.

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. Page 12 of 12 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Criminal No. 25-349 (JWB)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, PLEA AGREEMENT AND

SENTENCING STIPULATIONS

MUSTAFA DAYIB ALI,
Defendant.

The United States of America and Mustafa Dayib Ali (hereafter, the
“defendant”) 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 and the United States Department of Justice, Criminal
Division, Fraud Section (hereafter, “the United States” or “the government”). This
agreement does not bind any other United States Attorney’s Office or any other
federal or state agency.

1. Charges. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the
Indictment, which charges the defendant with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 18438. The defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crime 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. In
consideration for the defendant’s plea of guilty, the government agrees it will not
pursue additional charges against the defendant for any matters presently under

investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota or
CASE 0:25-cr-00349-JWB-JFD Doc. 87 _ Filed 07/23/26 Page 2 of 12

the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section.

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

guilty of Count One of the Indictment. In pleading guilty, the defendant admits the
following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and
constitute relevant conduct pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines:

Beginning in or around April 2022 and continuing through in or around April
2025, within the District of Minneapolis and elsewhere, the defendant and others
knowingly carried out a scheme to defraud the Housing Stabilization Services (“HSS”)
program, a Medicaid program designed to help people with disabilities and addictions
find and maintain housing. As part of that scheme, the defendant and others inflated
the hours expended in providing services to those people and_ thereby
misappropriated program funds that were intended as reimbursements for services
actually provided.

Specifically, the defendant was an owner of Brillant Minds Services, LLC that
was registered with the Minnesota Secretary of State in about October 2020 and
enrolled as an HSS provider in or about April 2022. The defendant and others
thereafter purported to service individuals through Brillant Minds from an office
suite in the Griggs-Midway Building in St. Paul, Minnesota. Ultimately, the
defendant and the other owners of Brillant Minds claimed to provide housing
stabilization services to approximately 350 different beneficiaries totaling

$2,253.385.06; however, Brilliant Minds did not perform all of the total claimed
services, instead billing for services not provided and inflating the amount of time for
services actually provided.

The HSS Program required providers to keep records reflecting the type and
duration of services provided. To document services that did not always occur or to
inflate the time of services provided, Brillant Minds employees fabricated client
notes. The defendant does not dispute the notes were fake and admits that he knew
the HSS bills he submitted for payment were inflated and fraudulent.

The defendant acknowledges that he and others sent, or caused to be sent,
communications in interstate commerce in furtherance of his fraud scheme, including
through the use of email accounts hosted by Google. Those communications include
the email charged in Count 1 of the Indictment.

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

that he has certain rights to file pretrial motions in this case. As part of this 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 pretrial motions in this case.

4. 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
CASE 0:25-cr-00349-JWB-JFD Doc. 87 Filed 07/23/26 Page 4of12

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.

5. 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.

6. Statutory Penalties. The defendant understands that Count One of

the Indictment (wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348) is a felony offense that

carries the following statutory penalties:

a. a maximum of 20 years in prison;
b. a supervised release term of not more than 3 years;
&. a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss

caused by the offense, whichever is greatest;

d. restitution as determined by the Court; and
e. a mandatory special assessment of $100.
A Revocation of Supervised Release. The defendant understands that

if he were to violate any supervised release condition while on supervised release, the

4
CASE 0:25-cr-00349-JWB-JFD Doc. 87 Filed 07/23/26 Page5of12

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. § 3588(e)(8). 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).

8. 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:

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

b. Specific Offense Characteristics. The parties agree that the loss
amount is at least $1.5 million but not more than $2,253,385. The
parties agree that the loss amount shall be decided by the Court at
the time of sentencing and that the Court’s decision will determine
the applicable enhancement contained in U.S.S8.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1).
The parties agree that a 2-level enhancement applies pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(7) because the defendant was convicted of a
federal health care offense involving a government health care
program and the loss to the government health care program was
more than $1 million. The parties agree that no other specific
offense adjustments apply.

C. 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

5
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(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. § 3E1.1 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.

d. 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
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.

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

f. Current Guidelines Range. Based on the foregoing, the adjusted
offense level will depend on the Court’s determination of the loss
amount. If the adjusted offense level is 20, as the government
believes it should be, and the criminal history category is I, the
Sentencing Guidelines range is 33-41 months of imprisonment. If
the adjusted offense level is 18, as the defendant believes it should
CASE 0:25-cr-00349-JWB-JFD Doc. 87 _ Filed 07/23/26 Page 7 of 12

be, the Sentencing Guidelines range is 27-33 months of
imprisonment.

g. Fine Range. If the adjusted offense level is 20, the Sentencing
Guidelines fine range is $15,000 to $150,000. If the adjusted
offense level is 18, the Guideline fine range is $10,000 to
$100,000.

9. 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 vary from the applicable Guidelines. If the Court determines that the
applicable guideline calculations are different from that stated above, such a
determination shall not provide a basis for the parties to withdraw from this
agreement, andthe defendant willbesentenced pursuant to the Court's
determinations.

10. 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 variances from the applicable Guidelines range pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 35538(a), and to oppose any such motion made by the opposing party. If
the Court does not accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, the
defendant will have no right to withdraw his guilty plea.

11. Special Assessment. The Sentencing Guidelines require payment ofa

special assessment in the amount of $100.00 for each felony count of which the
defendant is convicted. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.3. The defendant agrees that the special
assessment is due and payable at the time of sentencing.

12. 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 of at least $1.5
million but not more than the loss amount decided by the Court. The defendant’s
restitution obligation shall be joint and several with all other convicted defendants
charged in the Indictment.

13. 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
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
CASE 0:25-cr-00349-JWB-JFD Doc. 87 Filed 07/23/26 Page9of12

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.

14. 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(c), all property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the wire fraud
scheme charged in Count 1 of the Indictment.

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. To the extent the
defendant has requested remission or mediation of the forfeiture of the property, he
withdraws any such requests. The defendant agrees not to assist any third party in
challenging the forfeiture of the property.

The defendant consents to the entry of a money judgment forfeiture in an
amount to be determined before sentencing, which represents the amount of proceeds
the defendant obtained from the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 1 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.
CASE 0:25-cr-00349-JWB-JFD Doc.87 _ Filed 07/23/26 Page 10 of 12

The United States reserves the right to seek forfeiture of substitute assets and any
additional directly forfeitable property.

15. Waivers of Appeal and Collateral Attack. The defendant hereby

waives 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,
sentence and restitution, 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 Court’s determination of the applicable
guideline’s enhancement for loss amount and adjustment for role in the offense, and
the substantive reasonableness of a term of imprisonment above 41 months’
imprisonment.

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. Further, 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 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.

The defendant has discussed these rights with his attorney. The defendant

understands the rights being waived, and the defendant waives these rights

10
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
The United States agrees to waive its right to appeal any sentence except the
government may appeal the substantive reasonableness of a term of imprisonment

below 38 months’ imprisonment.

16. FOTA 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.

17. 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
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.

11


File and source

File

87-plea-agreement-as-to-mustafa-dayib-ali-mmp-entered-07-23-202.pdf

Size

2,799,654 bytes

SHA-256

233c67966cf274d24ede15b619349cc0cacef610ff73fbe2a71792f99d008b62

Our copy

87-plea-agreement-as-to-mustafa-dayib-ali-mmp-entered-07-23-202.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com