GOVERNMENT'S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION TO UNSEAL ENTIRE INDICTMENT

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

The United State of America, by and through STEVEN W. MYHRE, Acting United States Attorney, and PATRICK BURNS, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby respectfully submits this Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Unseal Indictment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On July 5, 2017, the Special Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Defendant Camilo Q. Primero (Primero) and Aurora S. Beltran (Beltran) with nineteen felony criminal counts, including the following offenses: Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349); Health Care Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347); Fraudulent Concealment Involving a Federal Health Care Program (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(a)(3)); False Statements Relating to a Health Benefit Program (18 U.S.C. § 1035); and Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957). A summons return date is currently scheduled for July 12, 2017 at 3:00 PM in front of United States Magistrate Judge George W. Foley. The Government now seeks to have the Court order the indictment unsealed in its entirety.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

II. Argument

A. Legal Standard for Magistrate Judge's Discretion to Unseal Grand Jury Indictment

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(4) grants a magistrate judge the power to seal an indictment:

The "`obvious purpose'" of the Rule "`is to prevent the requirement of an indictment from serving as a public notice that would enable the defendant to avoid arrest.'" United States v. Davis, 598 F.Supp. 453, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (quoting United States v. Muse, 633 F.2d 1041, 1043 (2d Cir.1980)). The Second Circuit has held that "there are various legitimate prosecutorial objectives, including, but not limited to, the facilitation of arrest, that will justify the sealing of an indictment." United States v. Srulowitz, 819 F.2d 37, 40 (2d Cir. 1987). The Sixth Circuit has held that "the need to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation" may justify the sealing of an indictment. United States v. Wright, 343 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2003). Even where an indictment is properly sealed, the Government must unseal the indictment "as soon as its legitimate need for delay has been satisfied." United States v. Watson, 599 F.2d 1149, 1154 (2d Cir. 1979).

B. The Government Certifies that the Need for Delay in Unsealing the Indictment Has Been Satisfied and the Indictment Should Be Immediately Unsealed in its Entirety

The Government requests to have the indictment unsealed in order to provide a copy to defense counsel prior to the initial appearance and to otherwise make the indictment public. Upon being advised of the summons date, counsel for Primero and Beltran indicated that they are both unavailable to appear for an initial appearance throughout most of the month of July due to scheduled trips out of the jurisdiction and one attorney's scheduled medical procedure. The parties have agreed and will be submitting a stipulation requesting to reset the initial appearance date to July 31, 2017. In the interim, the Government and defense counsel for Primero and Beltran wish for the defense to receive a copy of the indictment, which is currently sealed. Because the legitimate need for delay in unsealing the indictment has now been satisfied, the indictment should be unsealed in its entirety. Watson, supra.

III. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, after consideration of the included facts, points, authorities, exhibits, and arguments, the United States respectfully requests that this Court GRANT this motion and immediately order the indictment unsealed in its entirety.

ORDER ON GOVERNMENT'S EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION TO UNSEAL INDICTMENT

This matter coming on the Government's Emergency Ex parte Motion to Unseal Indictment, the premises therein having been considered, and good cause showing, the Motion is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above referenced Indictment, shall be, and is, unsealed.