USA v. Brandstrom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ryan Brandstrom,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cr-234 (JWB/DLM)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Ryan Brandstrom’s Motion to
Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to Residential Search Warrant and Affidavits (Doc.
57); Renewed Motion for Independent Laboratory Testing (Doc. 59); Motion to Declare
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Invalid as Applied to Amphetamine Sulphate, or in the Alternative Apply
Pre-2001 Cocaine Guideline, or for Downward Variance (Doc. 62); Motion to Sever Count
8 (Doc. 63); Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Outrageous Government Conduct (Doc.
64); and Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 66). The case has been referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1.
The Court held a motions hearing on October 21, 2025. (Docs. 69 (Minutes), 71
(Transcript).) Brad Endicott represented the government. Mr. Brandstrom, acting pro se,
represented himself, with Adrian LaFavor-Montez present as stand-by counsel. The
government called no witnesses, but offered, and the Court admitted, Government Exhibit
1, the application, affidavit, and warrant to search Mr. Brandstrom’s residence. Mr.
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 20

2
Brandstrom called no witnesses and offered no exhibits. For the reasons explained below,
the Court denies Mr. Brandstrom’s Renewed Motion for Independent Laboratory Testing
(Doc. 59); Motion to Declare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Invalid as Applied to Amphetamine
Sulphate, or in the Alternative Apply Pre-2001 Cocaine Guideline, or for Downward
Variance (Doc. 62); and Motion to Sever Count 8 (Doc. 63). The Court recommends that
Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to Residential Search
Warrant and Affidavits (Doc. 57) and Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Outrageous
Government Conduct (Doc. 64) be denied.
BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2024, Mr. Brandstrom was charged by eight-count indictment with
one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846; five counts of Distribution of a Controlled Substance, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); one count of Possession with Intent to
Distribute Controlled Substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A); and
one count of Money Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). (See
generally Doc. 1.) In the indictment, the government alleges that between August 2017 and
December 2023, Mr. Brandstrom operated an amphetamine trafficking scheme on the dark
web and encrypted marketplaces, using the United States mail to distribute controlled
substances across the country.
On December 1, 2023, during the investigation into Mr. Brandstrom’s activities,
law enforcement sought and obtained a federal warrant to search and seize items from his
residence, detached garage, two vehicles, his person, and multiple financial accounts.
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 20

3
(Gov’t Ex. 1 at 1-5, found at Doc. 73-1.) In support of probable cause for the warrant, the
affidavit explains that federal law enforcement agents had been investigating “Fastjack1”
a “known darknet narcotics vendor operating in the Minnesota area” since May 2021. (Id.
¶ 16.) The affidavit states, that “in May 2021, federal law enforcement “located Fastjack1
on the darknet marketplace White House Market, where Fastjack1 advertised listings for
‘Adderall Substitute’[.]” (Id. ¶ 19.) The affidavit goes on to explain that in August 2021,
an undercover Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) agent conducted a controlled buy
of “50 x Adderall Substitute 30 mg” from Fastjack1 on the “darknet marketplace White
House Market in exchange for approximately 1.2899 [M]onero1 (approx. $300.00).” (Id. ¶
21.) The undercover agent directed the shipment to a government-controlled undercover
address in Colorado; Fastjack1 confirmed the address and provided a United States Postal
Service tracking number. (Id.) Law enforcement received a package a few days later with
the same tracking number that Fastjack1 had provided and a return address on Wooddale
Drive in Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55125. (Id. ¶ 22.) The affidavit states that law enforcement
opened the package and discovered “five white mylar pouches,” and inside each pouch was
10 “blue/clear capsules with a white powdery substance, totaling 16.5 grams of laboratory
confirmed amphetamine and caffeine.” (Id.)
The affidavit continues that in May 2022, the undercover agent communicated with
Fastjack1 over a chat platform to purchase “three packs of Adderall Substitute x 60mg[.]”
1The affidavit explains that Monero is “a cryptocurrency which uses a blockchain with
privacy-enhancing technologies to obfuscate transactions to achieve anonymity and
fungibility. Observers cannot decipher addresses trading Monero, transaction amounts,
address balances, or transaction histories.” (Gov’t Ex. 1 at 17, n.6.)
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 20

4
(Id. ¶ 25.) The undercover agent transferred 0.0095 bitcoin (approximately $368.80) to an
address Fastjack1 provided and directed the shipment to an undercover address in law
enforcement’s control. (Id.) That same day, law enforcement conducted surveillance on
Mr. Brandstrom’s residence. (Id.) Law enforcement officers observed Mr. Brandstrom
leave his residence carrying a white bag, which he placed in his vehicle. (Id. ¶ 26.) Law
enforcement officers then followed Mr. Brandstrom to the United States Post Office at 940
44th Ave NE, Minneapolis, MN 55421, and observed Mr. Brandstrom place multiple items
in a United States Postal Service (USPS) blue mail collection box, then leave the area. (Id.)
Immediately after Mr. Brandstrom left the mail collection box, a United States
Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) inspector accessed the box’s contents and discovered
the parcel related to the undercover purchase. (Id. ¶ 27.) Law enforcement opened the
parcel, which contained consignee information Fastjack1 provided to the undercover agent,
and discovered a “manila envelope, invoice, and three black mylar bags that each held ten
blue/clear capsules with a white powdery substance, totaling 8.0 grams of laboratory-
confirmed amphetamine and caffeine.” (Id.)
The affidavit further describes an undercover purchase from October 26, 2022,
when the HSI undercover agent conducted another controlled purchase over a chat platform
of “three packs of Adderall Substitute 10 x 60mg” from Fastjack1. (Id. ¶ 29.) The
undercover agent transferred 0.017 bitcoin (approximately $363.95) to an address
Fastjack1 provided and directed the shipment to an undercover address in law
enforcement’s control. (Id.) Law enforcement again conducted surveillance on Mr.
Brandstrom’s residence and observed him leave the residence with a white plastic bag that
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 20

5
he placed in his vehicle. (Id. ¶ 30.) Law enforcement followed Mr. Brandstrom to a USPS
blue collection box at the corner of Stinson Blvd NE and 37th Place NE near Columbia
Heights, Minnesota. (Id.) Law enforcement then observed Mr. Brandstrom exit his vehicle
with the same white plastic bag, empty its contents into the mail collection box, and then
leave the area in his vehicle. (Id.)
Once Mr. Brandstrom departed, a USPIS inspector accessed the collection box and
discovered the parcel related to the undercover purchase. The parcel again contained the
consignee information the agent provided to Fastjack1 and the USPS tracking information
Fastjack1 provided to the undercover agent. (Id. ¶ 31.) Law enforcement opened the parcel
and “discovered a manila envelope, invoice, and three green mylar bags that each held ten
blue/clear capsules with a white powdery substance, totaling 8.5 grams of laboratory-
confirmed amphetamine and caffeine.” (Id.)
The affidavit next describes an undercover purchase conducted on December 15,
2022. (Id. ¶ 34.) Again, the HSI undercover agent purchased “three packs of Adderall
Substitute 10 x 60mg” from Fastjack1 over a chat platform. (Id.) The agent transferred
0.021 bitcoin (approximately $361.49) to an address Fastjack1 provided and directed
shipment to an undercover address in law enforcement’s control. (Id.) Law enforcement
then conducted surveillance on Mr. Brandstrom and observed him walk toward his vehicle
carrying a white plastic bag. (Id.) Mr. Brandstrom opened the vehicle’s trunk and accessed
contents inside. (Id.) Mr. Brandstrom then closed the trunk and walked toward his gray
2013 Toyota Sienna minivan, while still carrying the white plastic bag. (Id.) Mr.
Brandstrom placed the white plastic bag in the minivan and drove away. (Id.) Law
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 20

6
enforcement followed Mr. Brandstrom to the United States Post Office at 940 44th Ave
NE, Minneapolis, MN 55421. (Id. ¶ 35.) Officers observed Mr. Brandstrom place items in
a blue mail collection box and then leave. (Id.) Upon Mr. Brandstrom’s departure, law
enforcement accessed the contents of the blue collection box and discovered the parcel
related to the undercover purchase. (Id. ¶ 36) Again, the parcel contained consignee
information the undercover agent provided to Fastjack1, and the USPS tracking
information Fastjack1 provided to the agent. (Id.) Law enforcement opened the parcel and
discovered “a manila envelope, invoice, and three black mylar bags that each held ten
blue/clear capsules with a white powdery substance, totaling 8.0 grams of laboratory-
confirmed amphetamine and caffeine.” (Id.)
The affidavit also describes an undercover purchase from April 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 37-
38.) The undercover agent again contacted Fastjack1 and placed an order for “5 packs of
Adderall RX 5x30 mg IR.” (Id. ¶ 38.) The undercover agent transferred 0.025 bitcoin
(approximately $758.95) to an address Fastjack1 provided and directed the shipment to an
undercover address in law enforcement’s control. (Id.) Fastjack1 confirmed the sale and
provided the undercover agent with a USPS Priority tracking number. (Id.)
The package was delivered to the undercover address where USPIS took custody of
it. (Id. ¶ 39.) The package contained the same USPS Priority tracking number Fastjack1
provided to the undercover agent. (Id.) Law enforcement opened the package, which
contained “five gold-colored mylar pouches labeled as ‘Phenibut Nootropic
Supplement’[.]” (Id.) Each mylar pouch contained “five orange-colored tablets bearing the
markings “e 506” and “30.” The total combined weight of the twenty-five tablets was
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 20

7
approximately 10.0 grams. Laboratory analysis was conducted on the tablets by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, Forensic Chemistry Center (FCC), which were found to
contain amphetamine and sucrose. (Id.)
The affidavit next describes a controlled purchase from July 2023. (Id. ¶¶ 40-41.)
On July 12, the undercover agent conducted a controlled purchase of “‘three packs of
Adderall Substitute 10 x 60mg’ with Priority USPS shipping from Fastjack1[.]” (Id. ¶ 41.)
Law enforcement transferred 0.012 bitcoin (approximately $370.64) to an address
Fastjack1 provided and directed shipment to an undercover address in law enforcement’s
control. (Id.) Law enforcement then conducted surveillance of Mr. Brandstrom. (Id. ¶ 42.)
Law enforcement followed Mr. Brandstrom to a USPS blue mail collection box at 5192
Central Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN 55421, where he was observed placing items in the
box, and then leaving the area. (Id.)
Law enforcement accessed the contents of the blue mail collection box and
discovered the parcel related to the undercover purchase. (Id. ¶ 43.) The parcel contained
the consignee information the undercover agent provided to Fastjack1, and the USPS
Priority tracking number Fastjack1 provided to the agent. (Id.) Law enforcement opened
the parcel and discovered a “manila envelope, invoice, and three black mylar bags that each
held ten red/clear capsules with a white powdery substance. This white powdery substance
was later confirmed by a laboratory to contain caffeine.” (Id.)
Finally, the affidavit describes an October 2023 surveillance operation conducted
on Mr. Brandstrom’s residence. (Id. ¶¶ 44-45) On October 3, 2023, law enforcement
observed Mr. Brandstrom exit his residence carrying a dark-colored bag and black
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 7 of 20

8
backpack. (Id. ¶ 44.) Mr. Brandstrom approached his vehicle, placed the bag in the trunk,
entered the vehicle’s driver’s side with the backpack, and departed the area. (Id.) Law
enforcement followed Mr. Brandstrom to a Cub Foods grocery store at 3930 Silver Lake
Rd, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55421. (Id.) Mr. Brandstrom exited the vehicle carrying a
white plastic bag, approach a USPS blue mail collection box, and place the bag’s contents
into the box. (Id.) Law enforcement then observed Mr. Brandstrom go into the grocery
store, make a purchase, then leave the area. (Id.)
Later that afternoon, law enforcement accessed the contents of the blue mail
collection box and discovered “five parcels bearing the same sender information, Lively
Supplement Shoppe of 1839 Pleasant St., Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55113” which resembled
drug packages Mr. Brandstrom had previously shipped. (Id. ¶ 45.) Law enforcement
detained the packages and obtained a warrant to search the packages. (Id.) The search
resulted in the seizure of “13.5 grams of red and clear capsules filled with a white powdery
substance that field tested positive for amphetamine.” (Id.)
The affidavit also states that Mr. Brandstrom’s maintained a cryptocurrency
exchange account to transfer suspected narcotics proceeds to other accounts, and that
account was registered to his residence. (Id. ¶¶ 80-83.) Mr. Brandstrom’s Vanguard
brokerage account, which also received a portion of suspected narcotics proceeds, was also
registered to his residence. (Id. ¶¶ 93-99.)
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 8 of 20

9
ANALYSIS
I. MR. BRANDSTROM’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE
DENIED.
The Court first turns to Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained
Pursuant to Residential Search Warrant and Affidavits. Mr. Brandstrom argues that the
affidavit which supports the warrant to search his home fails to establish a nexus between
his residence and criminal activity and thus fails to establish probable cause. As a result, in
Mr. Brandstrom’s estimation, the warrant is invalid, and all evidence derived from the
search must be suppressed. The government counters that the affidavit provides
“overwhelming evidence” that Mr. Brandstrom’s residence was the “operational hub of a
sophisticated drug distribution scheme.” (Doc. 73 at 2.) Moreover, according to the
government, even if the warrant lacked probable cause, suppression is inappropriate here
based on the Leon2 good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
A. The warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between Mr. Brandstrom’s
residence and criminal activity.
A warrant to search a place may only issue if there is evidence of a nexus between
contraband and the place to be searched. United States v. Tellez, 217 F.3d 547, 550 (8th
Cir. 2000). In making this determination, courts consider “the nature of the crime and the
reasonable, logical likelihood of finding useful evidence.” United States v. Johnson, 848
F.3d 872, 878 (8th Cir. 2017) (United States v. Colbert, 828 F.3d 718, 726 (8th Cir. 2016)).
The determination of probable cause—that is, whether such a nexus exists—is based on “a
2 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 9 of 20

10
practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the
affidavit before [the court] . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Markwald, No. 21-cr-21
(ECT/BRT), 2021 WL 6808303, at *11 (D. Minn. Nov. 4, 2021) (citing Illinois v. Gates,
462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)), R. & R. adopted, 2022 WL 43306 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2022); see
also United States v. Neadeau, No. 20-cr-224 (WMW/LIB), 2021 WL 4046393, at *4 (D.
Minn. June 22, 2021) (noting that warrant-issuing courts may draw reasonable inferences
about where evidence is likely to be kept), R. & R. adopted, 2021 WL 367496 (D. Minn.
Aug. 19, 2021).
Once a warrant has issued, courts reviewing the warrant after the fact accord “great
deference to the issuing judge’s determination that [the] affidavit established probable
cause.” United States v. Keele, 589 F.3d 940, 943 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v.
Smith, 581 F.3d 692, 694 (8th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, the reviewing judge does not
examine the warrant to determine whether the issuing judge was presented with probable
cause; instead, reviewing courts, such as this one, “need only ensure that the issuing official
had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed.” United States v. Anderson,
933 F.2d 612, 614 (8th Cir. 1991).
Here, law enforcement sought a warrant to search Mr. Brandstrom’s residence for
evidence of distribution of controlled substances, money laundering, and conspiracy to
manufacture, distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. The
affidavit to search Mr. Brandstrom’s residence details that during a years-long
investigation into Mr. Brandstrom’s activities, law enforcement corroborated, through
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 10 of 20

11
multiple undercover operations, the nexus between Mr. Brandstrom’s residence and
ongoing controlled substance distribution activity. The affidavit states that on multiple
occasions in May, October, and December 2022, and July 2023 an undercover agent
purchased “Adderall Substitute” from “Fastjack1.” Shortly after each purchase was
confirmed, law enforcement observed Mr. Brandstrom leave his residence with a bag and
deposit parcels into USPS collection boxes. Law enforcement recovered the parcels and
confirmed they contained amphetamine.
Additionally, in October 2023, independent from the multiple undercover
purchases, law enforcement observed Mr. Brandstrom leave his residence carrying a dark
colored bag and a black backpack, which he placed in his vehicle before driving to a USPS
blue mail collection box outside of a grocery store. At the collection box, law enforcement
observed Mr. Brandstrom retrieve a white plastic bag from his vehicle and deposit its
contents into the mailbox before going into the store. Once Mr. Brandstrom left the area,
law enforcement accessed the collection box and recovered five parcels, all labeled with
the same sender information. Pursuant to federal search warrant, law enforcement
discovered 13.5 grams of red and clear capsules containing a white powder that field-tested
positive for amphetamine. The affidavit also establishes that Mr. Brandstrom’s Binance
cryptocurrency account and other financial accounts, which he used to receive proceeds
from suspected controlled substance sales, were registered to his residence.
Taken together, law enforcement’s multiple undercover purchases followed by Mr.
Brandstrom’s observed immediate departure from his residence to mail the corresponding
parcels, along with law enforcement’s independent surveillance of Mr. Brandstrom which
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 11 of 20

12
culminated in the recovery of multiple parcels containing controlled substances, establishes
a repeated pattern of suspected trafficking activity originating from his residence. But this
is not the only information that was available to the issuing judge. The affidavit also
establishes that multiple financial accounts Mr. Brandstrom used to receive the proceeds
from suspected controlled substance sales were registered to his residence as well. The
Court therefore finds that the information in the affidavit provides a substantial basis to
believe that evidence of criminal activity would be discovered at Mr. Brandstrom’s
residence. See United States v. Penaloza-Romero, No. 14-cr-2898 SRN/JSM, 2015 WL
3742994, at *5 (D. Minn. June 15, 2015) (upholding warrant to search defendant’s
residence where defendant was observed leaving residence with evidence of criminal
activity); accord Neadeau, 2021 WL 4046393, at *4.
B. Good faith.
While evidence seized under the authority of a defective warrant will generally be
excluded, under the Leon good-faith exception, “evidence seized pursuant to a search
warrant that lacked probable cause is admissible if the executing officer’s good-faith
reliance on the warrant is objectively reasonable.” United States v. Perry, 531 F.3d 662,
665 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Proell, 485 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 2007)). “The
good-faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a
reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the
issuing judge’s authorization.” Proell, 485 F.3d at 430 (quoting United States v. Puckett,
466 F.3d 626, 630 (8th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up)).
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 12 of 20

13
Of the limited bases for finding the good faith exception inapplicable, see Perry,
531 F.3d at 665, none exist here: there is no evidence of any false or misleading statements
in the warrant application; there is no suggestion the issuing judge abandoned his neutral
role; the affidavit in support of the warrant was not lacking in probable cause; and the
warrant is not alleged to be facially deficient. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
good-faith exception would apply to the residence warrant and the evidence discovered
because of its execution should not be suppressed even if the warrant were unconstitutional.
Accordingly, Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Suppres Evidence Obtained Pursuant to
Residential Search Warrant and Affidavits (Doc. 57) should be denied.
II. MR. BRANDSTROM’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
SHOULD BE DENIED.
In his Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Brandstrom moves the Court to dismiss the indictment
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) based on alleged “government
misconduct” which he argues “shocks the conscience.” (Doc. 64 at 1.) He contends that the
government’s alleged misconduct violates due process and to “restore fairness” the
indictment must be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 3.) But in his most recent
supplementary brief, Mr. Brandstrom clarifies that he no longer seeks to dismiss the
charges against him and instead asks the Court for series of “supervisory remedies”
including an evidentiary hearing, “supervisory orders,” and “findings of fact.” (Doc. 72 at
6-7.) Because Mr. Brandstrom advances no basis in law or fact to support these remedies,
the Court recommends that his Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (Doc. 64) be denied.
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 13 of 20

14
III. MR. BRANDSTROM’S MOTION TO SEVER IS DENIED.
Next, the Court turns to Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Sever Count 8. Mr. Brandstrom
moves the Court to sever Count 8—money laundering—from the remaining drug counts
and order a separate trial. According to Mr. Brandstrom, Count 8 must be severed from the
other charges in the indictment because it is based on different evidence and witnesses.
Thus, from Mr. Brandstrom’s perspective, trying Count 8 along with the other charges will
create a substantial risk of prejudice to him. The government, for its part, counters that
joinder is proper here because Count 8 is part of the same common scheme as the other
charges, and Mr. Brandstrom cannot show the severe prejudice required for severance.
Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant may be
charged “in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged . . . are of the
same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with
or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” But a district court may nonetheless sever
joined charges if a defendant demonstrates prejudice, that is, a showing that joinder will
deprive him of “an appreciable chance for an acquittal.” See United States v. Goodhouse,
81 F.4th 786, 791 (8th Cir. 2023). To make such a showing, defendant must convince the
Court that a jury “will be unable to compartmentalize the evidence.” United States v.
Sandstrom, 594 F.3d 634, 644 (8th Cir. 2010). Even where a risk of prejudice may exist,
the best remedy is not severance, but “careful and thorough jury instructions.” United
States v. Whitfield, 140 F.4th 978, 985 (8th Cir. 2025) (citing United States v. Delpit, 94
F.3d 1134, 1144 (8th Cir. 1996).)
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 14 of 20

15
Here, joinder is appropriate because the money-laundering and drug-trafficking
offenses charged in the indictment arise from the same series of alleged acts. The
laundering transactions exist only because of the cryptocurrency drug proceeds generated
through Mr. Brandstrom’s alleged online drug trafficking activity. This is precisely the
type of common scheme behavior that Rule 8(a) contemplates. United States v. Rock, 282
F.3d 548, 552 (8th Cir. 2002). Moreover, Mr. Brandstrom has failed to show how he will
be prejudiced by joining Count 8 with the other charges, besides general allegation that
joinder will create the risk of a conviction based on “prejudice rather than proof.” This is
an unconvincing argument that the jury will be unable to compartmentalize the evidence
at trial, let alone that any risk of prejudice cannot be mitigated by careful and thorough jury
instructions. As a result, Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Sever Count 8 (Doc. 63) is denied.
IV. MR. BRANDSTROM’S MOTION FOR INDEPENDENT LABORATORY
TESTING IS DENIED.
The Court next addresses Mr. Brandstrom’s Renewed Motion for Independent
Laboratory Testing. In his motion, Mr. Brandstrom asks the Court again for “authorization
to conduct independent laboratory testing of the alleged controlled substances seized in
this matter.” (Doc. 59 at 1.) The Court previously denied Mr. Brandstrom’s motion without
prejudice because he had failed to identify a qualified laboratory or testing protocol. (See
Doc. 51.) Now, in his renewed motion, Mr. Brandstrom attests that he has identified an
accredited laboratory that has agreed to conduct the testing he seeks (see Defense Ex. A3
3 Defense Exhibits A and B were submitted and accepted by the Court along with Mr.
Brandstrom’s Renewed Motion for Independent Laboratory Testing on September 10,
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 15 of 20

16
found at Doc. 60) and proposes a testing protocol that he says ensures safety and chain of
custody of the evidence (see Def. Ex. B found at Doc. 59 at 6-7). As a result, Mr.
Brandstrom contends that the Court should grant his request for independent testing so that
he may conduct his own “identity and composition testing[.]” (Doc. 72 at 7.)
The government, for its part, argues that Mr. Brandstrom’s motion should be denied
because although he professes to seek to confirm the substance’s identity and not only test
its purity, his own lab quote states that “[t]he goal of this analysis is to determine the purity
of each amphetamine powder sample to aid in your legal case.” (Def. Ex. A at 1.) From the
government’s perspective, purity testing is irrelevant because the amount of amphetamine
contained in the mixtures will have no impact on his Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2D.1.1; see also United States v. Ortega, 150 F.3d 937, 944 (8th Cir. 1998). Rather, if he
is convicted, says the government, Mr. Brandstrom’s Sentencing Guidelines will be
determined by the weight of the total mixtures, not purity.
Mr. Brandstrom acknowledges in his supplemental brief that purity testing is
“irrelevant,” but insists that the purpose of independent testing is to prove the identity of
the substances. (Doc. 72 at 7.) But his own lab quote shows that the lab he has identified
intends to conduct purity testing and makes no mention of testing the substance’s identity.
(See Def. Ex. A at 1.) Moreover, the lab represents that it will provide no expert witness to
authenticate the test results. (See id.) Because purity testing has no relevance in this case,
2025 (see Docs. 59, 60) and were not offered at the criminal pretrial motions hearing on
October 21, 2025 (see Doc. 69).
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 16 of 20

17
and because the testing sought will not lead to the submission of admissible evidence, Mr.
Brandstrom’s Renewed Motion for Independent Laboratory Testing (Doc. 59) is denied.
V. MR. BRANDSTROM’S MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS AS
APPLIED TO COUNT 1 IS DENIED.
The Court turns next to Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion for Bill of Particulars as to Count
1. Mr. Brandstrom argues that Count 1, which alleges his involvement in a conspiracy to
distribute controlled substances, is vague and therefore forces him to guess at the
government’s theory of the conspiracy. He asks the Court to order the government, under
Rule 7(f) of the Criminal Rules, to identify his co-conspirators and their role in the alleged
conspiracy. The government contends that because Count 1 satisfies the requirements of
Rule 7(f) by providing Mr. Brandstrom sufficient notice of the charge to prepare his
defense and avoid unfair surprise, his motion should be denied.
“The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of a
charge with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial and to avoid or minimize
the danger of surprise at trial.” United States v. Lundstrom, No. 14-cr-3136, 2015 WL
4249451, at *2 (D. Neb. July 13, 2015) (citing United States v. Livingstone, 576 F.3d 881,
883 (8th Cir. 2009)) (cleaned up), R. & R. adopted, 2015 WL 5881898 (D. Neb. Oct. 7,
2015), aff’d, 880 F.3d 423 (8th Cir. 2018). A bill of particulars may be required when the
indictment is vague on its face or contains conclusory allegations that fail to provide the
accused with sufficient notice of the crimes with which he is charged. Id. But a bill of
particulars is “not a discovery device to be used to require the government to provide a
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 17 of 20

18
detailed disclosure of the evidence that it will present at trial.” Id. (quoting Livingstone,
576 F.3d at 883) (cleaned up).
The Court denies Mr. Brandstrom’s motion because Count 1 adequately informs
him of the charge against him. The government also represents that it has “provided
extensive discovery, including the 131-paragraph search-warrant affidavit, surveillance
reports, undercover purchase documentation, financial analyses, and seizure records[.]”
(Doc. 73 at 9.) Based on this representation, the Court concludes that the government has
provided Mr. Brandstrom with sufficient notice to allow him to “understand the nature of
the charges against him, prepare a defense, and avoid any surprise.” United States v. Milk,
66 F.4th 1121, 1133 (8th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Shepard, 462 F.3d 847, 860
(8th Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion for Bill of Particulars as to Count
1 (Doc. 66) is denied.
VI. MR. BRANDSTROM’S MOTION TO DECLARE U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 INVALID
AS APPLIED TO AMPHETAMINE SULPHATE, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE APPLY PRE-2001 COCAINE GUIDELINE, OR FOR
DOWNWARD VARIANCE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Finally, the Court turns to Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Declare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1
Invalid as Applied to Amphetamine Sulphate, or in the Alternative Apply Pre-2001
Cocaine Guideline, or for Downward Variance. In this motion Mr. Brandstrom challenges
the validity of the sentencing guidelines as they apply to him. But challenges to the
application or validity of the Sentencing Guidelines do not arise until sentencing, if there
is a conviction. As a result, Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Declare U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1 Invalid
as Applied to Amphetamine Sulphate, or in the Alternative Apply Pre-2001 Cocaine
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 18 of 20

19
Guideline, or for Downward Variance (Doc. 62) is denied without prejudice to Mr.
Brandstrom renewing his motion, if he is convicted.
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS
RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendant Ryan Brandstrom’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to
Residential Search Warrant and Affidavits (Doc. 57) be DENIED; and
2. Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Outrageous Government
Conduct (Doc. 64) be DENIED.
ORDER
Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT IS
ORDERED that:
1. Mr. Brandstrom’s Renewed Motion for Independent Laboratory Testing (Doc.
59) is DENIED;
2. Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Declare U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 Invalid as Applied to
Amphetamine Sulfate; or in the Alternative to Apply Pre-2001 Cocaine
Guideline for Downward Variance (Doc. 62) is DENIED;
3. Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion to Sever Count 8 (Doc. 63) is DENIED; and
4. Mr. Brandstrom’s Motion for Bill Of (Doc. 66) is DENIED.
Date: January 9, 2026 s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 19 of 20

20
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 findings and recommendations within 14 days
after being served with 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 0:24-cr-00234-JWB-DLM Doc. 74 Filed 01/09/26 Page 20 of 20