USA v. Chupin-Higuera

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ismael Chupin-Higuera,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cr-359 (PJS/JFD)
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
The defendant in this case, Mr. Chupin-Higuera, is charged in an indictment dated
September 23, 2025 with Reentry of a Removed Alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
He was arraigned before Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko 112 days ago, on December
2, 2025. (Dkt. No. 15.) The Speedy Trial Act requires a defendant to be brought to trial
within 70 days of arraignment, unless one of the exceptions described in the Speedy Trial
Act 	applies. 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	3161(c)(1) 	and 	(h). 	Mr. 	Chupin-Higuera’s 	trial 	has 	not
commenced. In fact, Mr. Chupin-Higuera’s trial has not even been scheduled, because the
day after his arraignment – but before the status conference at which a schedule for this
case would have been worked out between the Court, the defense, and the prosecution –
immigration authorities took him into custody and, it seems, deported him to Mexico. The
Court says that “it seems” Mr. Chupin-Higuera was deported because although the
prosecutor told the Court, in an email dated December 17, 2025, that he was seeking
confirmation that Mr. Chupin-Higuera had indeed been removed from the United States,
the Court has not received that confirmation. That was the last anyone heard from the
CASE 0:25-cr-00359-PJS-JFD Doc. 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
government in this case.
Nearly 9 weeks ago (and after a month of silence from the government), on January
23, 2026, counsel for Mr. Chupin-Higuera filed a motion seeking dismissal with prejudice
of the indictment. (Dkt. No. 23.) The government has not responded to this motion. On
March 10, 2026, the Court ordered the government to show cause why the case should not
be dismissed pursuant to the time limitations in the Speedy Trial Act and directed the Clerk
of Court to transmit a copy of that order to AUSA Kristian Weir, the Chief of the Criminal
Division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. (Mar. 10, 2026 Order to Show Cause, Dkt. No. 24.)
The deadline for a response to that Order was March 20, 2026. No response has been
received as of the date of this writing, March 23, 2026.
Because the government has failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause,
failed to respond to defense counsel’s motion to dismiss, and failed to follow through on
its promise to check into whether Mr. Chupin-Higuera has been removed, and because,
independently, the government has failed to bring Mr. Chupin-Higuera to trial within the
limits set by the Speedy Trial Act, the Court RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed
with prejudice. The undersigned further ORDERS that the Chief of the Criminal Division
in the United States Attorney’s Office explain, in a writing filed on the docket, why a
prosecutor in that office ignored both an order to show cause issued by this Court and a
defense motion.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) states that “[i]f a defendant is not brought to trial within
the time limit required by section 3161(c) as extended by section 3161(h), the information
or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant.” Because there has been no
CASE 0:25-cr-00359-PJS-JFD Doc. 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court finds that the requirements for
dismissal under section 3162(a)(2) are satisfied in this case. Mr. Chupin-Higuera was not
brought to trial within 70 days of arraignment as required by section 3161(c), (see Dec. 2,
2025 Arraignment Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 15), that time limit was not extended by section
3161(h), and the defendant has moved for dismissal (see Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 23).
The Speedy Trial Act has been violated and dismissal is appropriate.
Independently, in charging this case, bringing it to the grand jury, but then
(apparently) deporting Mr. Chupin-Higuera in the middle of his criminal prosecution, and
refusing to communicate about the status of this prosecution, the government wasted
valuable time and resources, to say nothing of blowing off a court order. Because of the
inaction of the AUSAs assigned to this case, the Court agrees with Mr. Chupin-Higuera’s
counsel that this case should be dismissed with prejudice.
RECOMMENDATION
Further, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY
RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Mr. Chupin-Higuera’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) be GRANTED; and
2. 	This case be DISMISSED with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within two weeks of the date of this Order, the
Chief of the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office file, in writing, an
explanation for the failure to respond to a court order or to a defense motion.
CASE 0:25-cr-00359-PJS-JFD Doc. 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Date: March 24, 2026 	s/ John F. Docherty
JOHN F. DOCHERTY
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days
after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the
objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the
word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cr-00359-PJS-JFD Doc. 25 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 4