USA v. Camacho

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RAY NOEL CAMACHO, SR.,
Defendant.
4:21-CR-40042-LLP
ORDER AS TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS AT DOCKET
NOS. 84 & 87
Defendant Ray Noel Camacho is before the court on a superseding
indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance
and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). 	See Docket
No. 28. 	Pending are Mr. Camacho’s motions for assistance with discovery.
See Docket Nos. 84 & 87. 	The United States (“government”) resists these
motions. 	See Docket No. 85. 	These matters have been referred to this
magistrate judge for determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
Local Rule 57.11.
Mr. Camacho first requests that portions of his discovery be exported
into MP3, MP4, or PDF format. 	Docket Nos. 84 & 87. 	This request is similar to
the one Mr. Camacho made in a previous motion, which this court denied. 	See
Docket No. 65, p. 3; Docket No. 89, p. 12. 	In their response, the government
Case 4:21-cr-40042-LLP Document 94 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

2
acknowledged the issues Mr. Camacho is having with access to this electronica
discovery. 	Docket No. 85. 	The government asserts they reached an agreement
with Mr. Camacho’s stand-by counsel, Mr. de Castro, to have the discovery
hard drive returned so that the proper media players can be downloaded onto
the discovery hard drive and returned to Mr. Camacho. 	The court believes this
will adequately resolve the issues Mr. Camacho is having and thus
Mr. Camacho’s request is denied as moot.
Mr. Camacho also makes a request for Giglio1 discovery. 	Docket No. 84.
This is the exact same request Mr. Camacho made in two previous motions,
which the court also denied. 	See Docket No. 65, pp. 2-3; Docket No. 71, pp. 1-
2; Docket No. 89, pp. 9-12. 	Because the government has assured
Mr. Camacho that he will receive the relevant Giglio materials before trial,
Mr. Camacho’s request is denied.
Finally, Mr. Camacho requests assistance with filing subpoenas. 	Docket
No. 87. 	Mr. Camacho asserts he provided a list of names to Mr. de Castro that
he wanted subpoenaed and has been unable to reach him. 	Id. 	Mr. Camacho
also seems to take issue with the fact that the government will not release the
personal addresses of the witnesses. 	Id. 	This court addressed Mr. Camacho’s
subpoena requests at length in its recent ex parte order. 	See Docket No. 93.
Further, the government “is not required to inform [a defendant] of the address
or whereabouts of any potential witness.” 	United States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729,
734 (8th Cir. 1994). 	Thus, Mr. Camacho’s request is denied. 	Mr. Camacho
1 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
Case 4:21-cr-40042-LLP Document 94 Filed 09/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

3
has the authority to make subpoena requests to this court under FED. R. CRIM .
P. 17 (b) & (c) if he so chooses, as previously explained in this court’s order at
Docket No. 93.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing facts, law, and analysis, this court hereby
DENIES both of Defendant Ray Camacho’s motions for assistance with
discovery [Docket Nos. 84 & 87].
Dated this 8th day of September, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:21-cr-40042-LLP Document 94 Filed 09/08/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>