USA v. Celestin-Ortega et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER FOR JOINDER
v. 	)
) 	Case No. 3:24-cr-61
Jesus Amurahaby Celestin-Ortega, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	)
) 	Case No. 3:25-cr-36
Adam Javier Ponce, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
The United States moves to join the above cases and Defendants Jesus Celestin-Ortega,
Trinidad Meraz, Rafael Bueno-Nava, Christian Gonzales, Martina Mendez, Adam Ponce, and
Benjamin Olguin-Ortiz for trial. Doc. 211 in Case No. 3:24-cr-61. 1 Ponce and Olguin-Ortiz do not
oppose joinder. Celestin-Ortega, Meraz, Bueno-Nava, Gonzales, and Mendez have not responded
to the motion. The motions are granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In April 2024, the grand jury returned an indictment against Celestin-Ortega, Meraz,
Bueno-Nava, Gonzalez, Mendez, and others who have since either pleaded guilty or entered into
plea agreements. Doc. 2. The indictment alleges Celestin-Ortega led a drug trafficking enterprise
from inside a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility. The other Defendants allegedly transported drugs
1 Identical motions appear in both above-entitled cases.
Case 3:24-cr-00061-PDW Document 216 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
and collected money for the organization. Id. The United States later moved to sever Mendez
because her whereabouts were unknown. Doc. 89. The Court granted the motion and scheduled
trial for the Defendants who had appeared. Doc. 93. Law enforcement later arrested Mendez, and
she has since appeared. Doc. 201. Trial is currently set for January 13, 2026. Doc. 203.
In February 2025, the grand jury returned an indictment against additional coconspirators
Ponce and Olguin-Ortiz. Doc. 2 in Case No. 3:25-cr-36. That indictment charges Ponce and
Olguin-Ortiz with participating in the same drug trafficking conspiracy as Celestin-Ortega, Meraz,
Bueno-Nava, Gonzalez, and Mendez. Id. Trial is also set for January 13, 2026. Doc. 28 in Case
No. 3:25-cr-36. The United States argues these cases charge the same conspiracy and should be
joined for trial to promote judicial economy.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 13, “[t]he court may order that separate cases
be tried together as though brought in a single indictment or information if all offenses and all
defendants could have been joined in a single indictment or information.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 13.
“But because Rule 13 provides no independent joinder authority, the court must look to Rule 8(b)
to determine ‘whether the [G]overnment could have satisfied the requirements of Rule 8 if the
charges and defendants had been brought as a single proceeding. If the Rule 8 requirements are
not satisfied the matters may not be consolidated.’” United States v. Berganza Espina, No. 4:19-
CR-00228, 2021 WL 4941073, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021) (quoting 1A Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Consolidating Indictments and Informations
§ 217 (5th ed.); and citing United States v. Harrelson, 754 F.2d 1153, 1176 (5th Cir. 1985)). Under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(b), “The indictment or information may charge 2 or more
Case 3:24-cr-00061-PDW Document 216 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
defendants if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction, or in the same
series of acts or transactions, constituting an offense or offenses.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(b).
“Generally, the ‘same series of acts or transactions’ means acts or transactions that are
pursuant to a common plan or a common scheme.” United States v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831, 848
(8th Cir. 1998). Under that formulation, “rarely, if ever, will it be improper for co-conspirators to
be tried together.” United States v. Ali, 799 F.3d 1008, 1023 (8th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). The
decision to consolidate separate cases for trial is discretionary. United States v. Knowles, 572 F.2d
267, 270 (10th Cir. 1978); United States v. Haygood, 502 F.2d 166, 169 n.5 (7th Cir. 1974).
Ponce and Olguin-Ortiz do not oppose the joinder, and the other defendants did not file a
response. “An adverse party’s failure to serve and file a response to a motion may be deemed an
admission that the motion is well taken.” D.N.D. Crim. L.R. 47.1(E). The Court has also
independently reviewed the record and case law and is persuaded that joinder is appropriate on
these facts. Ponce and Olguin-Ortiz’ trial should be joined with the below-discussed defendants to
promote judicial economy and efficiency. United States v. Rimell, 21 F.3d 281, 288 (8th Cir. 1994)
(explaining rules are liberally construed in favor of joinder).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Having considered the record and the parties’ filings, the United States’ motions for joinder
(Doc. 211 in Case No. 3:24-cr-61) (Doc. 31 in Case No. 3:25-cr-36) are GRANTED. Pursuant to
Rules 8(b) and 13 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the two cases are joined and
Celestin-Ortega, Trinidad Meraz, Rafael Bueno-Nava, Christian Gonzales, and Martina Mendez
are joined with Adam Ponce and Benjamin Olguin-Ortiz for trial. All cases will proceed to trial on
July 28, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 3:24-cr-00061-PDW Document 216 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2026.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:24-cr-00061-PDW Document 216 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 4