United States v. Chen

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JING CHEN (1), YING CHEN (2), LI YANG (3), and XINHUA XIONG (4), Defendants.

CRIMINAL No. 21-250 (JRT/TNL)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 23, 2023

Laura Provinzino and Ana H. Voss, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Plaintiff.

Lauren Campoli, THE LAW OFFICE OF LAUREN CAMPOLI, PLLC, 7300 France Avenue, Suite 405, Minneapolis, MN 55435, for Defendant Jing Chen;

Jean M. Brandl, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDER, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 107, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendant Ying Chen;

Glenn P. Bruder, MITCHELL, BRUDER & JOHNSON, 9531 West Seventy Eighth Street, Suite 210, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, for Defendant Li Yang;

Piper Kenney Wold, LAW OFFICE OF PIPER L. KENNEY, 331 Second Avenue South, Suite 705, Minneapolis, MN 55401, for Defendant Xinhua Xiong.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &amp RECOMMENDATION AND ON ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEVER

JOHN R. TUNHEIM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants are charged with several crimes including conspiracy to commit transportation to engage in prostitution, conspiracy to use a communication facility to promote prostitution conspiracy to engage in money laundering, and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity. Defendants filed myriad motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress evidence, and suppress statements. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court deny all of Defendants' motions. Defendant Jing Chen also filed a motion to sever, which the Magistrate Judge separately denied. Defendants each object to the R&R and Jing Chen additionally requests review of the denial of her motion to sever. After conducting a de novo review of the dispositive motions, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly denied each motion. The Court will therefore overrule Defendants' objections, adopt the R&R, and deny Defendants' motions. The Court will also affirm the Magistrate Judge's denial of Jing Chen's motion to sever because the Magistrate Judge's order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

BACKGROUND

I. FACTS

Defendants Jing Chen (a/k/a Amy Chen), Ying Chen (a/k/a Vicki Chen), Li Yang, and Xinhua Xiong (a/k/a Lucy) were indicted by a grand jury on November 23, 2021. (Indictment, Nov. 23, 2021, Docket No. 1.) The Indictment brought charges for conspiracy to commit transportation to engage in prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2421 (all Defendants); conspiracy to use a communication facility to promote prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1952 (Jing Chen, Ying Chen, and Xinhua Xiong); conspiracy to engage in money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (all Defendants); and two counts of engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Jing Chen and Ying Chen). (See generally id.)

The Indictment alleges that Defendants conspired for their organization to make money by arranging for women to travel to Minnesota to engage in commercial sex acts at various illicit massage businesses throughout the Twin Cities Metro Area. (Id. at 2.) Defendants used computers and cell phones to post advertisements for commercial sex acts on Backpage.com. (Id. at 5-6.)

II. PRESENT MOTIONS

On February 4, 2022, Defendant Jing Chen filed four dispositive motions: (1) a motion to suppress evidence due to nondisclosure, (2) a motion to dismiss the Indictment for failure to state an offense, (3) a motion to dismiss the first and third counts of her charge due to the statute of limitations, (4) and a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure of her residence and of two safe deposit boxes. (Jing Chen Mot. Suppress Non-Disclosure, Docket No. 85; Jing Cheng Mot. Dismiss Indictment, Docket No. 89; Jing Chen Mot. Dismiss Counts, Docket No. 91; Jing Mot. Suppress Unlawful Search, Docket No. 92.) Jing Chen separately moved for severance from her codefendants. (Jing Chen Mot. Sever, Feb. 4, 2022, Docket No. 83.)

On October 18, 2022, Defendant Li Yang filed three motions: (1) a motion to dismiss Count I of the Indictment; (2) a motion to suppress statements, admissions, and answers; and (3) a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search of her residence and resulting seizure. (Yang Mot. Dismiss, Docket No. 178; Yang Mot. Suppress Statements, Docket No. 179; Yang Mot. Suppress Evid., Docket No. 181.)

On October 20, 2022, Defendant Ying Chen filed two motions with the Court: (1) a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure, and (2) a motion to suppress statements as a result of an unlawful interrogation. (Ying Chen Mot. Suppress Evid., Docket No. 188; Ying Chen Mot. Suppress Statements, Docket No. 191.)

Defendant Xinhua Xiong has only filed a single motion with the Court: a pretrial motion to dismiss the Indictment. (Xiong Mot. Dismiss, Jan. 4, 2022, Docket No. 56.)

III. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motions on December 9, 2022. (Minute Entry, Dec. 9, 2022, Docket No. 220.) Following the hearing and after considering the parties' supplemental briefing, the Magistrate Judge issued a lengthy R&R recommending the denial of Defendants' motions. (See generally R. & R., Mar. 9, 2023, Docket No. 246.) Defendants have each objected to the R&R. (Yang. Obj. R. & R., Mar. 23, 2023, Docket No. 249; Ying Chen Obj. R. & R., Mar. 23, 2023, Docket No. 250; Jing Chen Obj. R. & R., Apr. 6, 2023, Docket No. 255; Xiong Obj. R. & R., Apr. 6, 2023, Docket No. 256.)

In a separate order, the Magistrate Judge also denied Jing Chen's motion to sever without prejudice, concluding that joinder was appropriate given the “significant amount of overlap and interplay between the charges,” and because Jing Chen failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prejudice. (Order at 6, 11, Mar. 9, 2023, Docket No. 245.) Jing Chen asks the Court to review the Magistrate Judge's order denying her motion to sever, which the Court will construe as an appeal of the Magistrate Judge's order. (Jing Chen Obj. R. & R. at 7.)

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

After a magistrate judge files an R&R, a party may “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). “The objections should specify the portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made and provide a basis for those objections.” Mayer v. Walvatne, No. 07-1958, 2008 WL 4527774, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008). For dispositive motions, the Court reviews de novo a “properly objected to” portion of an R&R. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). “Objections which are not specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error.” Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015).

The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on non-dispositive pretrial matters is extremely deferential. Roble v. Celestica Corp., 627 F.Supp.2d 1008, 1014 (D. Minn. 2007) (internal citation omitted). The Court will reverse such an order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3). “A finding is clearly erroneous when ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'” Lisdahl v. Mayo Found., 633 F.3d 712, 717 (8^th Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). “A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

II. ANALYSIS

The Court will review most of Defendants' motions de novo. See LR 72.1(a)(3)(A) (identifying motions to dismiss an indictment and motions to suppress evidence as dispositive pretrial motions in criminal cases). However, motions to sever are considered non-dispositive, so the Court will review the Magistrate Judge's denial of Jing Chen's motion to sever for clear error. See United States v. Reed, No. 18-15, 2018 WL 7504843, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2018) (identifying motions to sever as non-dispositive).

The Court will begin with a review of Defendants' motions to suppress before turning to the motions to dismiss the indictment and then to Jing Chen's motion to sever.

A. Motions to Suppress

1. Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Non-Disclosure

Jing Chen has moved to suppress evidence that was untimely made available to her defense counsel. (See Jing Chen Mot. Suppress Non-Disclosure.) Jing Chen asserts that the Unites States' failure to timely disclose two terabytes of data violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and two discovery orders. (Id. at 1.) The United States opposes Jing Chen's motion, pointing to the fact that it provided multiple rounds of discovery to Defendants, accommodated evidence review, and disclosed terabytes of data-both before and after Jing Chen filed her motion. (Gov't's Resp. Defs.' Pretrial Mots. at 19, Feb. 7, 2023, Docket No. 243.)

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2) provides the Court with a menu of options if a party fails to comply with discovery rules in criminal cases, including if the United States fails to fulfill its obligation to disclose certain evidence...