USA v. SIROIS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:21-cr-00175-LEW
)
LUCAS SIROIS, et al. 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER
Defendant Lucas Sirois and the Defendant LLCs, now represented by Attorneys
Ehrenberg and Dion, have moved to continue the sentencing hearing scheduled for August
11, 2026, (ECF No. 808) to allow for the litigation of additional motions for a new trial
and to suppress evidence. Defendants have also filed a Motion for Leave to File (ECF No.
812) a motion to suppress evidence and for a Franks hearing that exceeds the page
limitations under Local Rule 7, to which the proposed motion has been attached (ECF No.
812-1).
To the extent Defendants’ proposed motion for a new trial is based on newly
discovered evidence, Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1) allows for their litigation notwithstanding
the imposition of sentence. See United States v. Mercado-Flores, 872 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir.
2017); United States v. Graciani, 61 F.3d 70, 77-78 (1st Cir. 1995). 	To the extent
Defendants’ proposed motions are not for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence,
they are either untimely or a variety of collateral attack properly confined to a petition for
postconviction relief. Either way, Defendants’ proposed additional post-trial motions are
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 813 Filed 08/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
not reasons to delay sentencing. 	Attorney Ehrenberg represents that he is otherwise
prepared to proceed with sentencing as scheduled, so the Motion to Continue (ECF No.
808) is DENIED. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File (ECF No. 812) is DENIED, as I
see no procedural mechanism or good cause to consider the underlying proposed motion,
as the jury has rendered a verdict in this case and no new trial, at which evidence
theoretically might be suppressed, has been ordered.
Attorney Parlatore’s Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 810) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. 	Attorney Parlatore’s request for leave to withdraw is GRANTED.
Because Attorney Parlatore has been discharged by his former client, the basis upon which
he may properly seek disqualification of counsel or the appointment of new counsel on
Defendant Lucas Sirois’ behalf is not apparent.1 The motion is therefore DENIED to the
extent it seeks that relief.
Separately, however, “where a trial court is, or reasonably should be, aware of a
potential conflict of interest, there is a duty for the court to investigate that possibility.”
Amador v. United States, 98 F.4th 28, 37 (1st Cir. 2024). 	It seems to me that there is at
least a colorable risk of a conflict arising from the issues raised in Defendant’s post-trial
motions, which pertain to the conduct and performance of trial counsel, and Defendant’s
previously stated intention of litigating those issues in a petition for postconviction relief.
Counsel should be prepared to address these issues at the hearing set for August 11, 2026.
At that time, the Court will also ascertain (1) whether Defendant Lucas Sirois intends to
waive his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, (2) whether that waiver (if
1 This aspect of Attorney Parlatore’s Motion was made as to Defendant Lucas Sirois only.
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 813 Filed 08/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
made) should be accepted or rejected, and (3) whether sentencing can proceed as
scheduled, with Defendant represented by counsel of record.
SO ORDERED .
Dated this 6th day of August, 2026._
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 1:21-cr-00175-LEW Document 813 Filed 08/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>