In support of his Motion, Mr. Wright points to his acceptance into addiction treatment at Minnesota Teen Challenge, his own projections about how long it will be before his case gets to trial, his commitment to his family and community before he was arrested, and his good behavior in jail.

The parties agreed with the Court that a rebuttable presumption of detention applied because probable cause existed to believe that Mr. Wright had committed an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more was prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act.

D. Mr. Wright’s Constitutional Claims Mr. Wright asserts that his continued pretrial detention violates the Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial provisions and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Second Circuit has held that a non-exhaustive list of the factors used to analyze the question should include “not merely ... the total time the defendants have been in pretrial detention but also” how much of the delay the prosecution is responsible for and the strength of the evidence concerning risk of flight.

In Gonzales-Claudio, the Second Circuit found the prosecution had inexplicably failed to even apprise the defense of the existence of surveillance videotapes whose disclosure was required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Id. While the court found the link between Perna and his co-defendants “somewhat tenuous,” it nonetheless found joinder proper because one of the counts charging Perna was integrally related to another count against a co- defendant ...

Having reviewed the R&R, 1 While co-defendant Alvin Calvin Noble (05) has filed an Objection [Doc. No. 215] to Magistrate Judge Leung’s February 2, 2024 Order [Doc. No. 213], none of the defendants have objected to the R&R. The ...

By order entered on October 20, 2023, the district court found that Lee “established some plausible showing that the information sought would be both material and favorable to his defense,” and ordered a list of records from governmental entities, including mental-health and psychological records, to be filed with the court for in camera review “to determine whether the victim’s privacy rights and privilege must give way to” Lee’s right to present a defense.

Lee served subpoenas on the governmental entities in possession of the remaining materials, directing the information to be delivered to the district court for in camera review.

), the supreme court determined that issuance of a writ of prohibition was necessary “to prevent irremediable harm to B.H.,” the victim in a criminal sexual conduct prosecution, from the district court’s order denying her motion to quash a subpoena requiring her to deliver her cell phone to a defense expert to extract data.

2(1) (providing that, on defendant’s motion and for good cause, district court must require prosecutor “to assist the defendant in seeking access to specified matters relating to the case that are within the possession or control of an official or employee of any governmental agency but not within the prosecutor’s control”).2 We are also not persuaded by the state’s arguments that the district court’s order is unauthorized because Lee did not make a “plausible showing” that the material sought will be relevant and material to his case.

To obtain in camera review, the defendant “must make some ‘plausible showing’ that the information sought would be ‘both material and favorable to his defense.’” State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68, 72 (Minn. 1992) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 n. 15 (1987)).

This case is before the Court on pro se Defendant Harold Bennie Kaeding’s Motion for Order for Access to Word Processor.

Mr. Kaeding is charged with wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering for allegedly submitting fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief loans he was not entitled to receive.

He also asks for the Court to provide “a color printer, a supply of paper, binders, 3-hole paper punch, indexing tabs, Post-It notes and highlighters.” (Id.) Finally, he asks to have a limited and supervised connection to the internet so he can file and serve documents, send exhibit lists, and submit proposed voir dire and jury instructions.

However, “[w]hen an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975).

The Eighth Circuit has expressed its “serious doubts whether a pretrial detainee who exercises his constitutional right to represent himself at trial thereby becomes entitled to legal resources over and above what are provided to the general inmate population.” United States v. Beale, 574 F.3d 512, 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Kind, 194 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir.1999)) (affirming district court’s denial of pro se criminal defendant’s request for a different CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD Doc. 188 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 3 computer).

Documents that were filed under seal in the district court remain inaccessible to the public on appeal.

The state failed to segregate the inaccessible documents and improperly designated the index and the entire addendum as confidential.

On or before February 20, 2024, the state shall e-file and e-serve a substitute addendum (filing type Other-Correcting Deficiencies) in two parts.

The first part shall be labeled as Petitioner’s Confidential Addendum, shall include an index to the contents, and shall be limited to documents filed as inaccessible to the public in district court.

Respondent may file an errata sheet with updated citations to the state’s substitute addendum by February 23, 2024.

P. 72(b); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).1 Finding no clear error, and based on all the files, records, and proceedings in the above- captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 171] is ACCEPTED; and Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress Statements [ECF No. 77] is

Defendant Harold Bennie Kaeding requested and obtained one extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

Regardless, if Mr. Kaeding’s objections were considered, they give no reason to think that the Report and Recommendation might be flawed or would not withstand de novo review.

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [ECF No. 78] is DENIED; and 4.

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained by Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum [ECF No. 74] is DENIED.

Mr. Kaeding is awaiting trial on charges of wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering for allegedly submitting fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief loans he was not entitled to receive.

Mr. Kaeding sought multiple extensions of time to object to the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 171) on the remaining motions.

He seeks to suppress all the evidence that he has not yet inspected, potentially provide notice that he will rely on the affirmative defense of public authority, and make additional motions after reviewing all the discovery, including motions to suppress on constitutional or privilege grounds.

He also seeks leave to file additional motions that he has developed during his “months of research,” though he “does not remember what these are but will identify them when he gains access to his computers and files.” (Id. at 2.)

But neither test applies here because Mr. Kaeding has pointed to no new evidence that justifies reopening the proceedings; he simply wishes to make new legal arguments.

None of Defendants filed a response to the Government’s motions. Likewise, at the hearing, none of Defendants voiced an objection to the Government’s motions.

... States v. Daniels, 232 F. App’x 611, 612 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion for grand jury transcripts given defendant’s “failure to make any showing in support of 5 The Government notes that “none ...

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion of the United States for Miscellaneous Relief, specifically to designate this case as complex under the Speedy Trial Act and to extend all pretrial discovery deadlines accordingly.

In support of its motion to designate this case as complex, the United States explained that the allegations of the Superseding Indictment focused on “a racketeering enterprise alleged to be a confederation of street gangs” that involved “188 specific overt acts.” The prosecution noted that “[d]iscovery regarding the Superseding Indictment will CASE 0:23-cr-00160-NEB-JFD Doc. 666 Filed 12/29/23 Page 3 of 13 be more voluminous and complex than the original Indictment.” Discovery materials were estimated to include at least 32,558 documents, over 1.5 terabytes of cell phone extractions, and hundreds of hours of body worn camera footage.

As noted above, the United States contends that even if complete disclosure could occur on the timeline of a typical scheduling order, the sheer size of the discovery project would result in defendants having an incredibly limited opportunity to conduct a meaningful review for the purpose of filing motions and preparing for trial.

At the December 28 hearing the United States represented it could produce these materials within approximately one week, and asked Mr. Lesure’s attorney, George Dunn, Esq. to email the prosecutor with the numbers of the overt acts for which police reports were requested.

Failure to do so in a timely manner may result in consequences, including, but not limited to, exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt CASE 0:23-cr-00160-NEB-JFD Doc. 666 Filed 12/29/23 Page 10 of 13 proceedings, disciplinary action, or sanctions by the Court.

Superseding Indictment Dated: November 8, 2023

X Reading of Indictment Waived X Not Guilty Plea Entered

Other Remarks: X Counsel to be notified of additional dates by separate Order to be issued.

s/nah Signature of Courtroom Deputy

Plaintiff: Samantha Bates, Assistant U.S. Attorney Defendant: Robert Richman, CJA Appointed Attorney

s/Kristine Wegner Courtroom Deputy to Judge Nancy E. Brasel

 Guilty as to Count 1 and of the Indictment.

 Presentence Investigation Report Requested.

 Defendant is remanded to the custody of the USM.

United States of America,

The Court has determined that the defendant in the above matter is financially unable to employ counsel and finds that it is in the interest of justice that counsel be assigned.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Brian Toder, Attorney ID 17869X, is appointed as counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.

s/John F. Docherty Honorable John F. Docherty United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant Jamaal Rashed Rice, through his counsel, has filed a Motion for a Continuance, ECF No. 194, and a Motion to Exclude Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, ECF No. 195.1 Defense counsel states that Rice recently tested positive for COVID-19 and is currently being quarantined at the facility where he is detained.

1 Defendant counsel notes that “[a]n executed Statement of Facts will be filed as soon as [Rice] is out of quarantine and can safely meet with counsel.” ECF No. 195 at 1.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to all Defendants, the criminal motions hearing scheduled for December 14 is CONTINUED to January 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned in Courtroom 9W, Diana E. Murphy U.S.

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by ordering this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendants’ right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

Accordingly, the time period between the date of this Order and January 5, 2024, shall be excluded from Speedy Trial Act computations in this case.