USA v. Thomas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cr-58-LTS-MAR
vs.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS INDICTMENT
MARLIN SANTANA THOMAS,
Defendant.
____________________
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 9, 2025, the Grand Jury charged Defendant with four counts of Sex
Trafficking Victims by Force, Fraud, and Coercion in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections
1591(a)(1) and 1591(b)(1) and four counts of Transportation of Victims for the Purpose
of Prostitution Through Coercion and Enticement in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section
2422(a). (Doc. 3.)
The matter before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 44.)1 The
Government timely filed a resistance. (Doc. 51.) The Honorable Leonard T. Strand,
United States District Court Judge, referred the motion to me for a Report and
Recommendation. On December 9, 2025, I held a hearing on Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss due to improper venue. (Doc. 82.) For the following reasons, I respectfully
recommend that the District Court deny Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss without
prejudice.
1 Defendant’s other motion to dismiss at Doc. 42 remains pending.
Case 1:25-cr-00058-LTS-MAR Document 83 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

2
II. DISCUSSION
A. The Parties’ Arguments
While it may be an oversimplification, Defendant essentially argues that not
enough of the alleged criminal conduct occurred in the Northern District of Iowa to permit
prosecution in this district under 18 U.S.C. Section 3237(a). The Government denies
Defendant’s contention. More to the immediate point, however, the Government asserts
that, so long as the indictment adequately alleges venue, it is not the Court’s job at this
stage to examine the underlying evidence and decide the venue issue. Rather, where the
indictment, as in this case, expressly alleges that the offenses occurred “in the Northern
District of Iowa” the issue must be determined by the jury.
At the hearing, Defendant advised the Court that the motion was primarily to
preserve the argument for trial, including his intention to raise the issue for jury
instructions.
B. Analysis
United States v. Hardaway held:
When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of venue, however, the
court must presume the truth of the allegations in the indictment and
consider whether venue is proper based on those allegations. See Boyce
Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 343 n.16, 72 S.Ct. 329,
96 L.Ed. 367 (1952); United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 415-16 (4th
Cir. 2012); United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 866 (11th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Jensen, 93 F.3d 667, 669 (9th Cir. 1996). “An indictment
returned by a legally constituted and unbiased grand jury, . . . if valid on
its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits.” Costello v.
United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956)
(footnote omitted). To go beyond the face of the indictment, and challenge
the sufficiency of the government's evidence on venue, Hardaway was
required to proceed to trial and put the government to its burden of proof.
999 F.3d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 2021).
Case 1:25-cr-00058-LTS-MAR Document 83 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

3
In the case at bar, each count of the indictment alleges that the offense occurred
“in the Northern District of Iowa and elsewhere.” (Doc. 3.) Since the allegation of
venue is sufficient, the Court should make no further inquiry into the adequacy of venue
at this stage. It is helpful to know the parties’ positions on the issue for the purposes of
jury instructions and trial, but it would be ainappropriate to further interrogate the facts
supporting venue unless and until it is raised later in the proceedings. Thus, the motion
is premature and should be denied without prejudice to refiling.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I respectfully recommend the District Court deny
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. (Doc. 44.)
Objections to this Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b) must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the
service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Objections must specify the parts
of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made, as well as the parts of
the record forming the basis for the objections. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59. Failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation waives the right to de novo review by the district
court of any portion of the Report and Recommendation as well as the right to appeal
from the findings of fact contained therein. United States v. Wise, 588 F.3d 531, 537 n.5
(8th Cir. 2009).
DONE AND ENTERED at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, this 9th day of December, 2025.
Case 1:25-cr-00058-LTS-MAR Document 83 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3