USA v. Lara-Martinez

I N THE U NITED STATES C OURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF P UERTO R ICO
U NITED STATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
[1] A LDRIN M ANUEL L ARA-
M ARTÍNEZ ,
Defendant.
C RIM . NO.: 24-154 (SCC)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Aldrin Manuel
Lara-Martínez’s (“Mr. Lara”) request for this Court to transfer
this case to the District of Massachusetts. See Docket No. 121.
The Government opposed the request, see Docket No. 127, to
which Mr. Lara replied, see Docket No. 138. For the reasons
set forth below, Mr. Lara’s request is GRANTED.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) provides that
“[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may transfer the
proceeding, or one or more counts, against that defendant to
another district for the convenience of the parties, any victim,
and the witnesses, and in the interest of justice.” Fed. R. Crim.
P. 21(b). Both requirements listed in Rule 21(b)—convenience
and the interest of justice—must be satisfied. United States v.
Case 3:24-cr-00154-SCC Document 139 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3

USA v. LARA-MARTÍNEZ 	Page 2
Walker, 665 F.3d 212, 224 (1st Cir. 2011). 	“Generally, venue
change under Rule 21(b) may be warranted depending on a
number of factors, the significance of which inevitably will
vary depending on the facts of a given case.” United States v.
Quiles-Olivo, 684 F.3d 177, 184 (1st Cir. 2012) (referencing Platt
v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240, 243–44 (1964)). Such
factors include: “the location of a defendant and potential
witnesses, 	contested 	events, 	relevant 	documents, 	and
counsel; expense to the parties; overall accessibility to trial
location; 	a 	given 	district's 	docket 	condition; 	potential
disruption of defendant's business if case is not transferred;
and any other special factors in play.” 	Id. at 184–85; see also
United States v. Peake, 804 F.3d 81, 90 (1st Cir. 2015) (applying
the Platt factors to the defendant’s motion for change of
venue).
Applying the Platt factors to the factual circumstances
at 	hand, 	the 	Court 	determines 	that 	the 	District 	of
Massachusetts provides a forum which supports convenience
and the interests of justice in this case. 	Mr. Lara is from
Massachusetts, where his family presently resides. 	Docket
No. 121, pg. 6. Mr. Lara’s brothers, Alvin Lara-Martínez and
Alder Lara-Martínez, were recently arrested in the District of
Massachusetts for conduct related to the conspiracy presently
before this Court. See USA v. Lara-Martínez, No. 25-424-MAJ-
Case 3:24-cr-00154-SCC Document 139 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3

USA v. LARA-MARTÍNEZ 	Page 3
HRV (D.P.R. Oct. 9, 2025). 	As a result, the Government has
concentrated its investigative efforts in Massachusetts, where
it has executed search warrants and served subpoenas on
potential witnesses in this case. 	Docket No. 121, pg. 6–7.
Accordingly, the Court understands that a substantial portion
of evidentiary materials and witnesses are located in the
District of Massachusetts. 	Moreover, based on the briefing,
which has referenced the discovery produced thus far, it has
become clear that the alleged events in this case largely
occurred in the District of Massachusetts. This case involves
a conspiracy which is alleged to have begun in Massachusetts,
where Mr. Lara communicated with co-defendant Franklyn
Báez-Otaño to prepare for the acts, and then traveled from
Logan International Airport to the Dominican Republic to
accomplish the object of the conspiracy. Docket No. 127, pg.
9 (citing Docket No. 114).
In consideration of the above, the Court concludes that
transfer of the instant matter is appropriate and GRANTS Mr.
Lara’s request at Docket No. 121. 	Accordingly, the Clerk of
the Court is directed to transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24th day of February 2026.
S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cr-00154-SCC Document 139 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3