1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

9 United States of America,

10 Plaintiff, No. 2:25-cr-00230-RFB-BNW No. 2:25-cr-00227-JAD-BNW 11 v. No. 2:25-cr-00240-GMN-BNW No. 3:25-cr-00026-MMD-CLB 12 Shamar Tyrell Garcia; Giann Icob Salazar Del Real; Devonte Devon Jackson; and 13 Jorge Enriquez, Jr., ORDER

14 Defendants. 15

16 17 The undersigned judge previously ruled that Acting U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah 18 was not legally appointed, and disqualified her from supervising these four cases. United 19 States v. Garcia,

(D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2025), appeal filed, No. 25-6229 20 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2025). Relying on this order, parties in a number of additional cases have 21 moved to disqualify Ms. Chattah from supervising their cases or to dismiss the charges 22 against them. The motions have been transferred to the undersigned judge. 23 The Court has granted the government’s motion to stay its previous decision 24 pending Ninth Circuit review. See Doc. 52, United States v. Garcia, No. 2:25-cr-00230. 25 While continuing to believe that its earlier ruling regarding Ms. Chattah’s appointment is 26 correct, the Court concluded that the ruling raises novel and important questions and that 27 the respect due a co-equal branch of government counsels in favor of staying the decision 28 || until an appellate ruling can be obtained. The Court notes that the Court of Appeals has || expedited the briefing schedule. 3 In light of this stay, the Court will deny the pending motions without prejudice. If 4|| the Ninth Circuit affirms the Court’s decision to disqualify Ms. Chattah but she remains in 5 || office, the motions can be re-filed by the parties in these cases and presumably can be 6|| resolved by the presiding Nevada judges based on Ninth Circuit law. If the Court of 7\| Appeals reverses the Court’s decision, the arguments made in these motions will be moot. 8 IT IS ORDERED that the following motions are denied without prejudice to re-filing after the Ninth Circuit rules on the pending appeal. 10 1. Doc. 119, United States v. Ward, No. 2:08-cr-00224-KJD-RJJ. 11 2. Doc. 125, United States v. Torres, No. 2:18-cr-00164-APG-VCF. 12 3. Doc. 80, United States v. Tesch, No. 2:20-cr-00188-RFB-DJA. 13 4. Doc. 116, United States v. Mattingly, No. 2:21-cr-00230-APG-VCF. 14 5. Doc. 250, United States v. Soloman, No. 3:22-cr-00022-ART-CSD. 15 6. Doc. 63, United States v. Tesch, No. 2:22-cr-00038-JAD-NJK. 16 7. Doc. 37, United States v. Fe’a, No. 3:23-cr-00010-ART-CLB. 17 8. Doc. 85, United States v. Brose, No. 3:23-cr-00017-MMD-CLB. 18 9. Doc. 90, United States v. Staples, No. 2:23-cr-00201-APG-EJY. 19 10. Doc. 46, United States v. Smith, No. 2:24-cr-00077-GMN-MDC. 20 11. Doc. 53, United States v. Recinos-Valdez, No. 3:25-cr-00010-MMD-CLB. 21 12. Doc. 14, United States v. Armas-Rodriguez, No. 3:25-cr-O0030-MMD-CSD. 22 13. Doc. 20, United States v. Devaughn, No. 2:25-cr-00119-JAD-DJA. 23 14. Doc. 17, United States v. Webber, No. 2:25-cr-00229-JAD-EJY. 24 15. Doc. 21, United States v. Fox, 2:25-cr-00250-APG-EJY. 25 16. Doc. 48, Lopez v. L.V. Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 2:24-cv-00628-GMN-NJK. 26 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2025.

28 David G. Campbell Senior United States District Judge