Plea Agreement — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 496, D. Minn.)

Summary

In this plea agreement filed 01/28/25 in the District of Minnesota (Criminal No. 22-223(4)), Abdulkadir Nur Salah agrees to plead guilty to Count 14 of the Indictment, which charges wire fraud, and the United States agrees to move to dismiss the remaining charges. Salah admits taking part, from in or about 2020 through in or about January 2022, in a scheme to defraud the federal child nutrition program through sites sponsored by Feeding Our Future, which paid out over $47 million for meals purportedly served at sites run by Salah and co-conspirators. The Count 14 email of on or about December 2, 2021 attached invoices falsely claiming more than 800,000 meals in November 2021. Salah agrees to owe restitution jointly and severally in the amount of $44,061,053.

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.

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page1of13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Criminal No. 22-223(4) (NEB/DTS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, PLEA AGREEMENT AND
SENTENCING STIPULATIONS
v.
ABDULKADIR NUR SALAH,
Defendant.

The United States of America and the defendant Abdulkadir Nur Salah 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.

1. Charges. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count 14 of the
Indictment, which charges the defendant with wire fraud, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 13848. 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.

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

guilty of Count 14 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:
From in or about 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 and misappropriated 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. 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.

The defendants opened an array of federal child nutrition program sites under
the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future, including sites in Minneapolis, St. Paul,
Willmar, Mankato, St. Cloud, Waite Park, and Rochester. The defendants claimed to
be serving meals to tens of thousands of children each day throughout the state of
Minnesota, for which they fraudulently claimed and received millions of dollars in
federal child nutrition program funds.

The conspirators also submitted fake attendance rosters purporting to list the
names of children who purportedly received their food at sites. The rosters were
fraudulent and the names on them fake.

The defendant understands that Feeding Our Future personnel, including

Aimee Bock and Abdikerm Eidleh, solicited kickback payments from participants in
the Federal Child Nutrition Program, including from the defendant’s co-conspirators.
The defendant made such payments.

Based on these fraudulent claims, Feeding Our Future paid out over
$47 million in federal child nutrition program reimbursements for meals purportedly
served to children at the sites run by the defendant and his co-conspirators. The
conspirators created and used various entities to receive the proceeds of the fraud
scheme. They used much of the money to purchase real estate in Minnesota and Ohio.

As alleged in Count 14 of the Indictment, on or about December 2, 2021, in
furtherance of this scheme, and in the state and District of Minnesota, the defendant
sent an email to Feeding Our Future with the subject line “All the companies.”
Attached to email were fraudulent meal counts and invoices for the fraudulent food
companies he and his co-conspirators used as part of the scheme. The invoices
claimed—falsely—that the companies had served more than 800,000 meals in the
month of November 2021 and that they were entitled to more than $4.2 million in
federal child nutrition program funds for meals purportedly served that month. The
email traveled through servers located outside the state of Minnesota.

3. 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. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page4of13

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
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 this conviction, the defendant could experience additional collateral
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 denied admission to the United States in the future. The defendant

has discussed with his attorney the punishments and consequences of pleading
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page5of13

guilty, understands that not all of the consequences can be predicted or foreseen, and
still wants to plead guilty in this case.

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

Count 14 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).

7. 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. § 8583(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
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page6of13

Court will consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines in determining the

appropriate sentence, and the parties stipulate to the following guideline

calculations:

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

Specific Offense Characteristics. The parties agree that the
offense level is increased by 22 levels because the loss is more
than $25 million, but not more than $65 million. U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(L). The parties agree that the offense level should
be increased by 2 levels because the offense involved a
misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a
charitable or educational organization. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A).
The parties agree that the offense level should be increased 2
levels because the offense involved sophisticated means and the
defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct
constituting sophisticated means. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(B)(10)(C). 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.

Chapter 3 Adjustments. The parties agree that no Chapter 3
Adjustments apply.

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).
Whether this reduction 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 (8) 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

6
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page/7of13

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
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 31, and the
criminal history category is I, the Sentencing Guidelines range is
108 to 1385 months of imprisonment.

h. Fine Range. If the adjusted offense level is 31, the Sentencing
Guidelines fine range is $30,000 to $300,000. U.S.S.G.
§ 5E1.2(c)(8).

1. Supervised Release. The Sentencing Guidelines call for a term of
supervised release of between one and three years. U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.2(a)(2).

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
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page 8of13

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.

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 departures from the applicable Guidelines range pursuant
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.

11. Special Assessment. The Sentencing Guidelines require payment of a

special assessment in the amount of $100 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
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page9of13

in the Indictment. The defendant agrees that he owes restitution jointly and severally
in the amount of $44,061,053.

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
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 wire fraud, as
charged in Count 14 of the Indictment, including but not limited to:

a. $309,993.51 seized from Bell Bank account No. xxxxxx2638 held

in the name of Cosmopolitan Business Solutions d/b/a Safari Restaurant;
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page10of13

b. $435,512.44 seized from Bell Bank account No. xxxxxxx5548 held
in the name of 3017 LLC (Abdulkadir Nur Salah);

c. $472,889.08 seized from Northeast Bank account number
xxx5100 held in the name of 3017 LLC (Abdulkadir Salah);

d. The real property located at 2722 Park Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota;

e. The real property located at 2742 Park Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota;

f. The real property located at 2435 Stelzer Road, Columbus, Ohio;

The defendant admits that this property is subject to forfeiture because it
constitutes proceeds or is traceable to the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 14 of
the Indictment.

The Defendant consents to the entry of a money judgment forfeiture in the
amount of $5,546,419, which represents the amount of proceeds obtained from the
wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 14 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.

In addition, the defendant abandons any interest he has in the following items
of property, consents to the administrative forfeiture of them, waives his right to

receive notice of their administrative forfeiture, consents to their destruction,

10
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page11of13

withdraws any claim he filed with respect to them, and withdraws any petition for
remission or mitigation of their forfeiture:

a. Miscellaneous electronics seized from 2722 Park Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, the registered business location of Cosmopolitan Business
Solutions;

b. Firearms seized from 2722 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, the registered business location of Cosmopolitan Business Solutions—
specifically, the Palmetto State Armory model PA-15 5.56 caliber AR-15 rifle, bearing
serial number SCB003791 and the Anderson Manufacturing model AM-15 5.56-
caliber AR-15 rifle, bearing serial number 20113938.

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 mnocence,
any issues relating to the change-of-plea proceedings, the sentence imposed, the
Guidelines calculations, 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 high-end of the Guidelines range
as determined by the district court.

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

11
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 496 Filed 01/28/25 Page12of13

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 the defendant’s attorney. The
defendant understands the rights being waived, and the defendant waives these
rights 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 the low-end of the Guidelines range as determined by the district court.

16. 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.

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

12
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.

Dated: /o8 [ 2025

HARRY M. JACOBS
MATTHEW S. EBERT
DANIEL W. BOBIER
Assistant United States Attorneys

Defendant ,

CHOLAS SCHEINER
nsel for Défendant

13


File and source

File

496-plea-agreement-as-to-abdulkadir-nur-salah-ltt-entered-01-28.pdf

Size

14,054,772 bytes

SHA-256

823478b6c116c48e7057f27c04362237d60e03459c896c937be84cf2347aca01

Our copy

496-plea-agreement-as-to-abdulkadir-nur-salah-ltt-entered-01-28.pdf

Original

archive.org