Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Machado

United States District Court, S.D. New York

November 22, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GERARDO MACHADO, et al., Defendants

Page 289

For Arnaldo Mendinueta-Ibarro, also known as Dread Dread, Defendant: Ronald Leon Garnett, Law Offices of Ronald L. Garnett, New York, NY.

For USA, Plaintiff: Kan.Min Nawaday, United States Attorney Office, SDNY, New York, NY; Santosh Shankaran Aravind, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (St Andw's), New York, NY.

OPINION

Page 290

DECISION AND ORDER

Victor Marrero, United States District Judge.

By Superseding Indictment dated May 16, 2012 (the " Indictment" ), a grand jury charged defendants Maria Duprey (" Duprey" ), Brian Gilbert (" Gilbert" ), Lazaro Martinez (" L. Martinez" ), Rafael Martinez (" R. Martinez" ), and Rossell Pauley (" Pauley" ) (collectively, the " Moving Defendants" ), along with defendants Arnaldo Mendinueta-Ibarro, Gerado Machado, and Benito Monterey, with conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of " crack" cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. No. 5.)[1]

The Moving Defendants -- either through their respective motions or by joining another Moving Defendant's motion -- move for orders to: (1) suppress Title III wiretap evidence; (2) direct the Government to provide a bill of particulars pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; (3) direct the Government to produce material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny; and (4) direct the Government to disclose evidence it intends to offer at trial under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Dkt. Nos. 75, 76, 78, 79, 80.) In addition, Pauley moves to sever his trial from the trial of his co-defendants (Dkt. No. 78) and R. Martinez moves to strike the use of his alias " Rafaelito" from the Indictment as surplusage (Dkt. No. 75).[2]

For the reasons set forth below, the Moving Defendants' motions are DENIED, Pauley's severance motion is DENIED, and R. Martinez's motion to strike the use of his alias is DENIED.

I. WIRETAP EVIDENCE

The Moving Defendants move to suppress wire communications intercepted by law enforcement officials pursuant to an Order issued by Honorable Robert Sweet dated November 7, 2011 (the " Order" ) and extensions or related subsequent orders issued on December 15, 2011 by Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum; on January 27, 2012 by Honorable John Keenan; and on April 18, 2012 by Honorable Richard Berman (collectively, the " Subsequent Orders" ).[3] The Moving Defendants argue

Page 291

that the Order improperly authorized the use of electronic wire surveillance without a sufficient showing that other investigative procedures would not have achieved the goals of the investigation. The Court is not persuaded that the Order and Subsequent Orders were issued improperly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.