United States v. Eburuche, 2:24-cr-20400

Reginald Eburuche was convicted by a jury of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) on May 29, 2025.
Three weeks after conviction, Eburuche moved to dismiss his indictment, alleging selective prosecution based on race/ethnicity for PPP loan fraud.
He pointed to four Michigan companies that settled civilly (qui tam referrals) and repaid funds instead of facing criminal charges, claiming a disparity in treatment.
The government noted material differences: the four comparator matters arose from qui tam referrals, involved smaller aggregate loan amounts (collectively under $1,000,000) versus Eburuche’s $1,700,000, and the comparators’ owners’ races were not identified.
The court found the motion untimely (Rule 12; should have been raised pretrial) and that Eburuche failed to make the required clear showing of discriminatory intent or effect.
The court denied discovery/evidentiary hearing because Eburuche did not meet Armstrong’s demanding threshold for a credible showing of both discriminatory intent and effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of selective-prosecution claim	N/A	Eburuche: raised after conviction; asserts discovery of comparators occurred post-trial	Denied — claim waived; should have been raised pretrial absent good cause
Burden to prove selective prosecution	Government: defendant must present clear evidence of intent and effect	Eburuche: prosecutions show disparate treatment of people of color vs. white corporations/owners	Denied — Eburuche failed to show discriminatory intent; relied on impact-only theory without affirmative proof
Comparator sufficiency / discriminatory effect	Government: comparators not similarly situated (qui tam origin, smaller amounts)	Eburuche: four settled companies show differential treatment	Denied — comparators materially different; no evidence they were similarly situated
Discovery / evidentiary hearing on selective prosecution	Government: Armstrong requires credible showing before discovery	Eburuche: requested discovery/hearing to develop claim	Denied — did not meet Armstrong/Hazel standard to justify discovery or hearing

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (establishes clear-evidence standard and limits discovery on selective-prosecution claims)
United States v. Edwards, [citation="783 F. App'x 540"] (6th Cir. 2019) (recites Armstrong requirements for intent and effect)
United States v. Thorpe, 471 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2006) (recognizes narrow Yick Wo exception; generally requires separate proof of discriminatory intent)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (explains exception where impact alone can demonstrate discriminatory intent)