USA v. Banks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Craig R. Baune, David Green, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 300
South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Plaintiff.
James Andre Banks, SPN # 29272, Sherburne County Jail, 13880 Business
Center Drive Northwest, Elk River, MN 55330, pro se Defendant; Paul C.
Engh, PAUL ENGH ATTORNEY AT LAW, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2860,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, Standby Counsel for Defendant.
Defendant James Andre Banks is charged with possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine and cocaine, felon in possession of a firearm, and carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 	There are presently several motions
pending before the Court, each of which will be addressed in turn below.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES ANDRE BANKS,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 23-307 (JRT/DTS)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING GOVERNMENT’S MOTION
IN LIMINE, DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
TRANSCRIPTS
CASE 0:23-cr-00307-JRT-DTS Doc. 166 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 5

-2-
I. 	GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
First, the Government has moved for an order “precluding any party from
referencing any potential punishment at trial.” 	(Gov’t.’s First Mot. In Limine, Sept. 11,
2025, Docket No. 145.) 	The Government further requests that “the jury be instructed
that punishment, if any, is solely the province of the Court and is not to be considered
during their deliberations.” 	(Id.) 	The Government, raising concerns regarding Banks’s
repeated arguments that the charges against him may create unwarranted sentencing
disparities, cites case law supporting the proposition that “[t]he argument of counsel,
generally speaking, should be confined to the evidence that has been produced and to
such inferences as may reasonably be drawn therefrom.” See Brennan v. United States,
240 F.2d 253, 263 (8th Cir. 1957).
Banks filed a motion objecting to the Government’s motion. (Mot. Obj. & Refuse
Gov’t.’s Mot. In Limine, Oct. 2, 2025, Docket No. 154.) Banks’s filing primarily argues that
the Court should not rule on the Government’s motion because the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this case under the abstention doctrine established in Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 	The Court restates here, as it has previously, that Younger
abstention does not preclude the Court from exercising jurisdiction in this case. 	See
United States v. Banks, No. 23-307, 2025 WL 2621753 at *4–5 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2025).
On the merits of the Government’s motion, the Court recognizes that a jury’s role
at trial is to determine whether the Government has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. This task does not include consideration of potential sentences or
CASE 0:23-cr-00307-JRT-DTS Doc. 166 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 5

-3-
punishments. 	The Court therefore will grant the Government’s request and will order
that the parties refrain at trial from referencing potential punishments before the jury.
The Court will instruct the injury at trial that it may not consider possible punishment in
reaching the verdict, as the Court has done in all criminal cases.
II. 	BANKS’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
On October 2, 2025, Banks filed a Pro Se Notice of Interlocutory Appeal of the
Court’s order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 	(Not.
Interlocutory Appeal, Oct. 2, 2025, Docket No. 152.) 	Banks also applied to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. (Mot. Appeal In Forma Pauperis, Oct. 2, 2025, Docket
No. 153.)
On October 10, 2025, the Eighth Circuit entered judgment dismissing Banks’s
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (Judgment of USCA as to James Andre Banks, Oct. 10, 2025,
Docket No. 159.) Although Banks appears to meet the criteria to proceed IFP, the Eighth
Circuit’s dismissal of Banks’s appeal renders his motion to proceed IFP on appeal both
moot and premature. The Court will therefore deny the motion.
III. 	BANKS’S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Banks has also filed a request for permission to file a motion to reconsider.
(Request for Permission, Oct. 22, 2025, Docket No. 161.) The Local Rules of this District
prohibit motions to reconsider unless expressly permitted by the Court and require a
party wishing to file such a motion to first request permission of the court by letter.
D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). 	“A party must show compelling circumstances to obtain such
CASE 0:23-cr-00307-JRT-DTS Doc. 166 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 5

-4-
permission.” Id. Banks’s letter restates his arguments from previous stages of this case,
and requests to file a motion for reconsideration will not be granted where the motion
would only serve to relitigate old issues. 	The Court will deny Banks’s request for
permission to file a motion to reconsider
IV. 	BANKS’S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPTS
Finally, Banks has moved to receive a copy of the transcript from the status
conference held on October 2, 2025, which he argues should be “free due to IFP status.”
(Mot. Transcripts, Oct. 29, 2025, Docket No. 162.) Banks states that a free copy of the
transcript is necessary to support his appeal to the Eighth Circuit—however, as discussed
above, the Eighth Circuit has dismissed Banks’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly,
the Court will deny the motion.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The Government’s First Motion in Limine [Docket No. 145] is GRANTED. 	The
parties are ordered to refrain at trial from discussing the potential punishments
stemming from the charges in this case in front of the jury.
2. 	Defendant’s Motion to Object and Refuse the Government’s Motion in Limine
[Docket No. 154] is DENIED.
3. 	Defendant’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Docket No. 153]
is DENIED as moot.
CASE 0:23-cr-00307-JRT-DTS Doc. 166 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 5

-5-
4. 	Defendant’s Request for Permission to File Motion to Reconsider [Docket No. 161]
is DENIED.
5. 	Defendant’s Motion for Status Conference Transcripts [Docket No. 162] is DENIED.
DATED: December 2, 2025
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:23-cr-00307-JRT-DTS Doc. 166 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 5