DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Deshema Clark (“Defendant”) stands accused by way of an indictment returned on or about March 2, 2023, with misprision of felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §4 and false statements to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(2). (Dkt. 1). Defendant filed pretrial motions on August 16, 2023 (Dkt. 23), the government filed papers in opposition on September 15, 2023 (Dkt. 25), and oral argument was held on October 18, 2023, at which time the undersigned ruled from the bench on the outstanding issues. This Decision and Order memorializes those rulings and sets forth in further detail the Court’s reasoning for denying the motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. II. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged by way of a second superseding indictment in United States v. Cobb et al., Case No. 1:19-CR-00155 (the “2019 Action” or “Case No. 1:19-CR-00155″), with a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846 (count 1), maintaining a drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. §856(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §2 (count 23), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D) and 18 U.S.C. §2 (count 24). (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 106). Five other defendants were also named in the second superseding indictment, all of whom resolved the case through a plea (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 380; Dkt. 398; Dkt. 407; Dkt. 447) with the exception of Deandre Wilson (“Wilson”) who was convicted by a jury and ultimately sentenced to an aggregate prison sentence of three consecutive life sentences plus thirty years (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 645). Defendant was in a relationship with Wilson. Like most of her co-defendants, Defendant also entered into a plea agreement with the government. Defendant pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana, pursuant to which the government agreed to dismiss at the time of sentencing the counts in the second superseding indictment that were pending against Defendant. (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 397). Sentencing is currently scheduled on that matter for June 24, 2024 (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 718), and thus the counts in the second superseding indictment against Defendant remain pending. As part of the pretrial litigation in the 2019 Action, Defendant filed omnibus pretrial motions, including suppression motions related to statements by Defendant and evidence obtained during a search of her home at 164 Parkridge Avenue, Buffalo, New York, on October 9, 2019. (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 189; Dkt. 268). The Court issued several Decisions and Orders in connection with those motions, as described more fully below: (1) a Decision and Order entered June 18, 2021 (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 242), that made the following rulings: (a) denied Defendant’s severance motion; (b) denied Defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars; (c) denied Defendant’s request that the Court issue a deadline for the government to comply with its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or otherwise direct that certain information be produced; (d) denied Defendant’s request that the Court order early disclosure by the government of material pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. §3500; (e) granted Defendant’s request that the government be directed to preserve all rough notes and items of evidence; (f) denied Defendant’s request for grand jury transcripts; (g) denied Defendant’s request for the identity of informants and related information; (h) denied Defendant’s motion for production of material pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16; (i) denied without prejudice Defendant’s motion related to various matters covered by the Court’s pretrial order (such as issues related to the government’s expert witnesses and disclosure of information pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 608, and 609); and, (j) denied without prejudice Defendant’s unspecified request for leave to file additional motions; (2) a Decision and Order entered October 4, 2021 (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 310), denying the motion to suppress evidence seized during the search on October 9, 2019, finding that the search warrant for 164 Parkridge Avenue was supported by probable cause and, alternatively, suppression was not warranted pursuant to the good faith exception recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984); and, (3) a Decision and Order entered April 25, 2022 (Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 360), rendered after an evidentiary hearing, denying Defendant’s motion to suppress Defendant’s statements made to law enforcement on October 9, 2019, and evidence seized from her cellphone. As part of the pretrial motions filed by Defendant in the instant matter, she largely repeated verbatim the requests for relief previously requested in the 2019 Action.1 As Defendant’s counsel acknowledged at the appearance before the undersigned on October 18, 2023, Defendant did so to preserve the record. At the appearance on October 18, 2023, the Court indicated that those pretrial motions would be resolved in the same manner as previously resolved; namely: (1) Defendant’s request for a bill of particulars was denied because she failed to meet her burden under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f); (2) Defendant’s request for disclosure of informant identities and related information was denied for the same reasons previously articulated in the 2019 Action (see Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 242 at 25-30); (3) Defendant’s request for Rule 16 disclosures and Brady information was denied to the extent Defendant sought information outside the scope of those requirements, and was otherwise denied as moot based on the government’s uncontroverted representations that it has complied with its obligations; (4) Defendant’s request for grand jury transcripts was denied for the same reasons previously articulated in the 2019 Action (see Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 242 at 24-25); (5) Defendant’s request for various relief that will be addressed by the Court’s pretrial order (such as relief related to the government’s expert witnesses and information relevant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), 608, and 609) was denied without prejudice and could be renewed consistent with the deadlines set in the Court’s pretrial order (see Dkt. 27); (6) Defendant’s request for the production and preservation of rough notes was denied as moot, because the government had already preserved and produced that information in the 2019 Action; (7) Defendant’s requests for suppression were denied for the reasons previously articulated in the 2019 Action (see Case No. 1:19-CR-00155, Dkt. 310, Dkt. 360); and (8) Defendant’s motion for leave to file unspecified additional motions was denied without prejudice.2 The only new issue raised as part of Defendant’s pretrial motions in the instant matter was the motion to dismiss on the grounds of double jeopardy. Defendant argues that the charges in the current indictment involve the same factual basis as the indictment in the 2019 Action, and thus the present claims are barred on double jeopardy grounds. (Dkt. 23 at
