Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – A 22-year-old Beaumont resident has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction for robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick. Dveaunta Montez Hall pleaded guilty Dec. 17, 2018.
Today, Senior U.S. District Judge John D. Rainey sentenced Hall to 100 months in federal prison - 16 months for the robbery offense as well as a 84-month consecutive term for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The prison term will be immediately followed by five years of supervised release.
On March 14, 2018, the Corpus Christi Police Department (CCPD) responded to an aggravated robbery at the Whataburger located in the 4100 block of South Staples. Hall had entered the business and pointed an assault rifle at employees and customers inside while demanding money from the register. The male then fled the location on foot.
Shortly thereafter, responding officers located Hall, who still had the assault rifle in his possession, near the location. During the investigation, officers discovered Hall had stolen the assault rifle from a nearby apartment shortly before committing the robbery.
Hall will remain in federal custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility.
CCPD and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Lance Watt is prosecuting the case.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – A 22-year-old Corpus Christi man has entered a guilty plea to robbery and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick.
On March 14, 2018, the Corpus Christi Police Department (CCPD) responded to an aggravated robbery at the Whataburger located in the 4100 block of South Staples. Upon their arrival, officers discovered that a male – later identified as Dveaunta Montez Hall, 22 - had entered the business and pointed an assault rifle employees and customers while demanded money from the register. He then fled the location on foot.
A short while later, responding officers located Hall, who still had the assault rifle in his possession, near the location. During the investigation, officers discovered Hall had stolen the assault rifle from a nearby apartment shortly before committing the robbery.
Senior U.S. District Judge John D. Rainey accepted Hall’s plea today and set sentencing for March 17, 2019. At that time, he faces up to 20 years imprisonment and a maximum $250,000 fine for the robbery and a minimum and mandatory seven years for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, which must be served consecutively to any other prison term imposed.
He has been and will remain in custody pending that hearing.
CCPD and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted the investigation. Attorney Lance Watt is prosecuting the case.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
SAN ANTONIO – A San Antonio man pleaded guilty in federal court in San Antonio Wednesday to one count of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl resulting in death.
According to court documents, Patrick James Hall, 28, is charged with distribution of fentanyl resulting in the death of a 20-year-old woman. The two met on Oct. 28, 2020, in a hotel room where he had been selling the drug in the form of a small round blue pill disguised as oxycodone. Phone records indicate that the victim had been unconscious in Hall’s hotel room for an extended period before Hall returned a missed call to the victim’s friend using her cell phone. Hall notified the friend that she needed to pick up the victim from the hotel because she had overdosed. He then left the location without calling for emergency services. The victim’s friend, however, did alert emergency services and, upon their arrival, the victim was pronounced dead, noting she had been deceased for some time. A toxicology report showed that the victim had an amount of fentanyl in her blood that exceeded 24 times a fatal dose.
Hall was arrested on Nov. 19, 2020. Text messages sent from his phone confirmed that he had been selling the pills to multiple individuals at the time of the victim’s death, and that he himself had overdosed on the pills one week prior to this instance.
Hall is scheduled to be sentenced on June 15 and faces a penalty of 20 years to life in prison. A Federal District Court Judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
U.S. Attorney Jaime Esparza of the Western District of Texas and Special Agent in Charge Daniel Comeaux of the Drug Enforcement Administration Houston Field Office made the announcement.
The DEA and SAPD are investigating the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Hail is prosecuting the case.
SAN ANTONIO – A San Antonio man stands charged with distributing a controlled substance containing fentanyl that resulted in a person’s overdose death in October of last year.
A four-count federal grand jury indictment returned this afternoon charges 27-year-old Patrick James Hall with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl resulting in death; one count of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl resulting in death; and two counts of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl.
The indictment alleges that on October 28, 2020, the defendant possessed and sold fentanyl-laced pills to the victim who died after ingesting them. The indictment also alleges that the defendant possessed with intent to distribute fentanyl on October 26, 2020 and November 19, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Ashley C. Hoff and Special Agent in Charge Daniel C. Comeaux of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Houston Field Office made today’s announcement.
Upon conviction, Hall faces between 20 years and life in federal prison for the conspiracy and substantive charges alleging a result of death and up to 20 years in federal prison for each of the remaining two drug charges.
The DEA, with assistance from the San Antonio Police Department, investigated this case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Marie Hail is prosecuting this case.
An indictment is merely a charge and should not be considered as evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
TUCSON, Ariz. –Brandon Hall, 33, of Phoenix, Arizona, was sentenced last week by United States District Judge Jennifer G. Zipps to 48 months in custody, followed by three years of supervised release. Hall was convicted of Assaulting a Federal Officer with a Deadly Weapon.
On July 8, 2022, United States Border Patrol agents received information that seven suspected undocumented non-citizens had entered a silver 2011 Ford Edge near Naco, Arizona. Agents responded to the area and located the vehicle suspected of transporting the group. After initially yielding to law enforcement, Hall, who was driving the Ford Edge, sped up and drove directly at a Border Patrol agent approaching on foot. Hall narrowly missed hitting the agent, as the agent had leapt onto his service vehicle’s hood. Hall then proceeded to drive at nearly 90 miles per hour on State Route 92, passing vehicles on the shoulder, driving through a stop sign, and barely avoiding colliding with other vehicles on the road. Border Patrol agents later found Hall and arrested him, along with his co-defendant, Martina Vega, who was riding in the vehicle’s front seat.
Vega, Hall’s co-defendant, pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Transport Illegal Aliens for Profit While Placing in Jeopardy the Life of Another Person. Judge Zipps sentenced Vega on February 8, 2023, to 15 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
Customs and Border Protection’s United States Border Patrol conducted the investigation in this case. The United States Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, Tucson, handled the prosecution.
CASE NUMBER: 22-CR-01695-JGZ-BGM
RELEASE NUMBER: 2023-067_Hall
# # #
For more information on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/
Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, on Twitter @USAO_AZ for the latest news.
PHOENIX, Ariz. – Prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office, along with a special agent from the FBI, will participate in a telephonic town hall coordinated through the AARP to provide information to Arizona residents to help them identify and avoid fraudulent schemes, including scams related to COVID-19.
The telephonic town hall will happen on Tuesday, June 9 from 10 a.m. until 11 a.m. PDT. During the event, an FBI special agent and two federal prosecutors will discuss various scams relating to COVID-19 and provide tips for avoiding them. A discussion about other scams targeting the elderly will also be highlighted. Participants from Arizona will be allowed to ask questions during the presentation.
The AARP Fraud Watch Network is providing the infrastructure for the event. Approximately 100,000 AARP member households will receive a phone call Tuesday morning inviting them to participate in the town hall. Those who wish to receive an invitation can sign up on this AARP registration page: https://vekeo.com/aarparizona/#.
On June 9 at 10 a.m., participants can join the call by dialing 877-299-8493 and entering the following ID: 114737#. Participants can also join the town hall via Facebook by going to @aarparizona to listen.
During the current health crisis, federal investigators and prosecutors continue to fulfill their critical mission of protecting public safety. Federal officials have prioritized the disruption, investigation and prosecution of crimes related to COVID-19, including fraudulent schemes, unapproved treatments, and scams related to stimulus money. During the virtual town hall meeting, federal officials will discuss the types of schemes currently being seen, along with tips on how to avoid becoming a victim.
The FBI continues to warn the public about these schemes, some of which have already been seen in Arizona and other parts of the country:
Scammers are setting up websites, contacting people by phone and email, and posting disinformation on social media platforms.
Individuals and businesses selling fake cures for COVID-19 online.
Phishing emails from entities posing as the World Health Organization or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Malicious websites and apps that appear to share Coronavirus-related information to gain and lock access to your devices until payment is received.
Seeking fraudulent donations for illegitimate or non-existent charitable organizations.
Obtaining patient information for COVID-19 testing and then using that information to fraudulently bill for other tests and procedures.
If you think you are a victim of COVID-19 fraud, immediately report it the FBI (visit ic3.gov, tips.fbi.gov, or call 1-800-CALL-FBI).
In addition, the public is urged to report suspected fraud schemes related to COVID-19 by calling the National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) hotline (1-866-720-5721).
To find out more about Department of Justice resources and information, please visit: www.justice.gov/coronavirus.
RELEASE NUMBER: 2020-056_AARP Town Hall
# # #
For more information on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/ Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, on Twitter @USAO_AZ for the latest news.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
“Moments ago, a unanimous jury found Sung Kook ‘Bill’ Hwang and Patrick Halligan guilty of a massive market manipulation scheme via the private investment firm Archegos. As the evidence at trial has shown, Hwang, founder and owner of Archegos, and Halligan, Archegos’s Chief Financial Officer, made false assurances and lied to Wall Street investment banks to induce them to provide capital to Archegos, which Hwang and Halligan then used to inflate the stock prices of several publicly traded companies. Hwang and Halligan lied about Archegos’s positions in these companies and just about every other materially important metric investment banks would use in determining the firm’s creditworthiness. In doing so, Hwang and Halligan were able to fraudulently inflate a $1.5 billion portfolio into a $36 billion portfolio. This verdict should send a resounding message that this Office will continue to police the financial markets with an eagle eye and swiftly hold accountable those who think they can cheat the system.”
Edward Y. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that SUNG KOOK (BILL) HWANG, the founder and head of a private investment firm known as Archegos, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein to 18 years in prison concurrently on each count charged for leading a criminal enterprise that manipulated the prices of multiple stocks and defrauded at least nine investment banks. In July 2024, HWANG was convicted following a nine-week jury trial of racketeering conspiracy, securities fraud, market manipulation, and wire fraud.Acting U.S. Attorney Edward Y. Kim said: “Bill Hwang weaponized his personal hedge fund, Archegos, to pursue financial fraud on a national scale. For months on end, Hwang and his coconspirators used an array of lies and manipulative trading strategies to rig the stock market in Hwang’s favor. Hwang’s crimes brought him to the brink of staggering wealth before his fraud collapsed and left investors, banks, and even Hwang’s own employees with billions of dollars in losses. Today’s sentence sends a clear message that criminal manipulation schemes will be met with serious prison sentences.”As reflected in the Indictment, court filings, and the evidence presented at trial:Beginning in 2020, HWANG—along with his co-conspirators, including codefendant Patrick Halligan (Archegos’s Chief Financial Officer)—used the Archegos enterprise to pursue two interrelated criminal schemes, one involving manipulative trading in the marketplace and the other involving false and misleading statements to Archegos’s trading counterparties. Although HWANG held himself out as an investor focused on company fundamentals with a three- to five-year investment horizon, which had been Archegos’s investment approach for years, by the fall of 2020, HWANG spent his time—and nearly all Archegos’s capital—on constant trading in the same core stocks. HWANG began deploying strategies aimed to manipulate, control, and artificially affect the market for securities in Archegos’s portfolio. Those techniques included purchasing or selling securities at particular times of day including marking the price of securities up at the close of trading to trigger payouts to Archegos and trading at times and in a manner to give the false impression of additional interest in the securities, transacting in certain securities in large amounts or high volume, and timing or coordinating certain transactions to maximize impact on the market.HWANG’s manipulative trading was sustained and furthered by lies and misrepresentations made to Archegos’s counterparties. As HWANG’s trading led to large position sizes, Archegos’s counterparties started to impose limits on Archegos’s trading. To enable HWANG to continue to trade the same names at larger sizes, HWANG, Halligan, and others conspired to make repeated, materially false and misleading statements to Archegos’s counterparties about Archegos’s portfolio of securities. These false and misleading statements were designed to fraudulently induce the counterparties into trading with and extending credit to Archegos, enabling and facilitating the market manipulation scheme, and to hide the true risk of doing business with Archegos.By March 2021, HWANG’s manipulative trading scheme—which relied in part on continually increasing the size of Archegos’s positions in a handful of equities—had profoundly reshaped Archegos’s portfolio and risk profile. Now Archegos had concentrated its investments in a number of publicly traded stocks with markets that HWANG found he could distort, including of large companies, such as ViacomCBS and Discovery. Archegos’s portfolio became highly vulnerable to external events that might deflate the artificial prices HWANG had created. In late March 2021, the markets exposed HWANG’s price manipulation. On March 22, 2021, ViacomCBS announced a seasoned equity offering. Following that announcement, on March 23, 2021, HWANG directed nearly a billion dollars in additional purchases of stock in ViacomCBS and other companies whose stock HWANG had manipulated in a final effort to control the prices of those stocks and prevent them from declining and harming the value of his portfolio. On March 24, 2021, using what cash and trading capacity remained, HWANG made one final attempt to reverse market forces, but he failed. When the markets closed, Archegos faced substantial margin calls that it could not meet, causing billions of dollars in losses to the counterparties that had financed HWANG’s trading.Ultimately, the market manipulation and fraud schemes, and the billions of dollars in losses that they caused, victimized a wide swath of market participants, including counterparties that engaged in loans and securities trading with Archegos based on lies and deceit, ordinary investors who purchased and sold the relevant securities at artificial prices, and securities issuers who made business decisions based on the artificial prices of their stocks. The schemes also caused millions of dollars of losses to innocent Archegos employees who had been required to allocate to Archegos a substantial amount of their pay as deferred compensation.* * *In addition to the prison term, HWANG, 60, of Tenafly, New Jersey, was sentenced to three years of supervised release concurrently on each count and ordered to pay more than nine billion dollars in restitution.Halligan, who was convicted at trial alongside HWANG of racketeering conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud, is scheduled to be sentenced on January 27, 2025.Mr. Kim praised the outstanding work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew Podolsky, Alexandra Rothman, Samuel P. Rothschild, and Andrew Thomas are in charge of the prosecution.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Deputy United States Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco, and Michael J. Driscoll, Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of an indictment charging SUNG KOOK (BILL) HWANG, the founder and head of a private investment firm known as Archegos, and PATRICK HALLIGAN, Archegos’s Chief Financial Officer, with racketeering conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud offenses in connection with interrelated schemes to unlawfully manipulate the prices of publicly traded securities in Archegos’s portfolio and to defraud many leading global investment banks and brokerages. Both defendants were arrested earlier today and will be presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr..
Also unsealed today are the guilty pleas of SCOTT BECKER and WILLIAM TOMITA in connection with their participation in the conspiracy. BECKER pled guilty pursuant to an Information before U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain on April 21, 2022. TOMITA pled guilty pursuant to an Information before Judge Swain on April 21, 2022. Both are cooperating with the Government.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “We allege that these defendants and their co-conspirators lied to banks to obtain billions of dollars that they then used to inflate the stock price of a number of publicly-traded companies. The lies fed the inflation, and the inflation led to more lies. Round and round it went. In one year, Hwang allegedly turned a $1.5 billion portfolio and pumped it up into a $35 billion portfolio. But last year, the music stopped. The bubble burst. The prices dropped. And when they did, billions of dollars of capital evaporated nearly overnight.”
Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco said: “Today’s announcement demonstrates the department’s unwavering commitment to hold accountable individuals who distort and defraud our financial markets, including those who occupy the C-Suite. That is especially true for this kind of crime—the kind that leaves a financial crater in its wake.”
FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Michael J. Driscoll said: “As alleged, Hwang and his co-conspirators convinced major financial institutions to enter into agreements with them based on lies, the result of which ultimately led to a massive market manipulation scheme. We allege the defendants caused harm to U.S. financial markets and ordinary investors alike, causing significant losses to banks, market participants, and Archegos employees. Today’s charges highlight our commitment to making sure the investment arena remains free from fraudulent activity of all kinds.”
According to the allegations in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]
SUNG KOOK (BILL) HWANG is the founder and owner of Archegos Capital Management and its related business entities, which are collectively known as Archegos. As alleged, HWANG, along with PATRICK HALLIGAN, SCOTT BECKER, and WILLIAM TOMITA lied to banks to obtain billions of dollars that they then used to artificially inflate the stock price of a number of publicly traded companies.
HWANG and his co-conspirators invested in stocks mostly through special contracts with banks and brokers called “swaps.” As alleged, these swaps allowed HWANG to cause massive buying of certain stocks, including at carefully selected days and times, to artificially pump up stock prices. HWANG, HALLIGAN, and their co-conspirators lied to banks and used a series of manipulative trading techniques to keep those prices high and prevent them from falling. The lies fed the inflation, and the inflation led to more lies. The scale of this alleged fraud was stunning. In one year, Hwang turned a $1.5 billion portfolio and fraudulently pumped it up into a $35 billion portfolio.
Last year, the music stopped. The prices dropped and HWANG was unable to keep the prices propped up. When the prices fell, HWANG’s positions were sold off and he could no longer manipulate the prices, and billions of dollars of capital evaporated nearly overnight.
As alleged, the defendants committed this fraud in secret. Since 2014, HWANG has run Archegos as a private hedge fund or “family office,” meaning that Archegos, unlike other large hedge funds, was not required to tell regulators information about its holdings and debt that might have shined a light on the fraud and allowed the crisis to be averted.
And because HWANG traded mostly through swaps, he was able to do the massive buying alleged in the Indictment without anyone knowing that Archegos was actually behind all the trading. Regular market participants, and even the companies themselves, were duped into thinking the price increases were caused by the normal interplay of supply and demand when, instead, as alleged, they were the artificial result of HWANG’s manipulative trading.
To take just one example, as alleged, by March 24, 2021, HWANG effectively controlled more than 50% of the freely trading shares of Viacom – and no one outside of Archegos knew about it—not investors purchasing Viacom in the market, or the executives at Viacom itself, or even the banks and brokerages who held the stock as part of the swaps. Because, as alleged, by using various banks and brokerages for his swaps, HWANG made sure that no single institution would have any idea that he was behind all of this trading.
The Indictment further alleges that in order to get the billions of dollars Archegos needed to sustain this massive market manipulation scheme, HWANG and his co-conspirators lied to and misled some of Wall Street’s leading banks. They lied about how big Archegos’s investments had become. They lied about how much cash Archegos had on hand. They lied about the nature of the stocks that Archegos held. And, as alleged, they told those lies for a purpose: so that the banks would have no idea what Archegos was really up to, how risky the portfolio was, and what would happen if the bubble burst one day.
As alleged, that day ultimately came. Just over a year ago, the market turned and the stock prices HWANG and his co-conspirators had artificially inflated crashed, causing immense damage to U.S. financial markets and ordinary investors. In a matter of days, the companies at the center of Archegos’s trading scheme lost more than $100 billion in market capitalization, Archegos owed billions of dollars more than it had on hand, and Archegos collapsed. Market participants who purchased the relevant stocks at artificial prices lost the value they believed their investments held, the banks lost billions of dollars, and Archegos employees, many of whom were required to invest 25% or more of their bonuses with Archegos as deferred compensation, lost millions of dollars.
* * *
A chart containing the names, ages, residences, charges, and maximum penalties for the defendants is attached. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding work of the FBI. Mr. Williams thanked the Department of Justice’s Organized Crime and Gang Section for its assistance. Mr. Williams further thanked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, each of which today filed a parallel civil action.
If you think you are a victim of the scheme alleged in this press release, beginning tomorrow, April 28th, you are encouraged to contact law enforcement at USANYS.ARCHEGOS@USDOJ.GOV.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force. Assistant United States Attorneys Andrew Thomas, Matthew Podolsky, and Alex Rossmiller are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Defendant
Age
Residence
Charges
Maximum Potential Sentence(s)
United States v. Sung Kook (Bill) Hwang and Patrick Halligan, 22 Cr. 240
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth in this release constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
PHILADELPHIA – United States Attorney William M. McSwain announced today that Gregory Dow, 60, of Lancaster, PA was arrested and charged by Indictment with four counts of engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place. In a news conference at the Lancaster County Courthouse, U.S. Attorney McSwain discussed the charges in the Dow Indictment and also highlighted broader efforts of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to protect the residents of Lancaster County.
The Indictment alleges that from on or about October 14, 2013, until on or about September 13, 2017, the defendant engaged in, and attempted to engage in, illicit sexual conduct with four different minor victims in Kenya. The defendant allegedly traveled from Lancaster County to Kenya in 2008 and started what came to be known as the Dow Family Children’s Home. He did so with the financial support of his church and other organizations. The defendant purported to be a Christian missionary who would care for these orphans, who called him “Dad.” But instead of being a father figure to them, he allegedly preyed on their youth and their vulnerability. The orphanage closed in September 2017, and the defendant now stands accused of sexually abusing at least four minor girls who lived there during that time.
U.S. Attorney McSwain also discussed recent Lancaster criminal and civil cases handled by his Office, many of which his Office adopted in collaboration with the local authorities who originally investigated the crimes.
The criminal cases include: a knifepoint carjacking in Lancaster by a Harrisburg, PA man, Suudimon Washington; the alleged attempted robbery of Smithgall’s Pharmacy in Lancaster by four men, Lamar Black, Brandon Galette, Andrew Garrett, and Johnny Straining; the alleged arson of Lancaster City Hall by Dwain London and Patrick Baker; and the alleged illegal possession of a stockpile of 27 firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon living in Lancaster, Tyshaun Williams.
The civil cases include: a civil action against Miller’s Organic Farm of Bird-in-Hand, PA to compel the owner to comply with the federal government’s basic food safety laws and regulations, and a settlement agreement with Lancaster General Hospital’s Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine resolving allegations of false claims submitted to Medicare for reports on obstetric ultrasounds that were significantly delayed.
“All of these cases tell a story about my Office working to bring justice to every corner of our District – from Philadelphia, to the Lehigh Valley, to right here in Lancaster,” said U.S. Attorney McSwain. “I am committed to bringing the resources of my Office here to help ensure that the people of Lancaster can live in safety and security. We will hold lawbreakers accountable using all of the tools at our disposal.”
The Dow case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.
The Dow case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with assistance from the Lancaster City Bureau of Police and the East Hempfield Township Police Department. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Timothy Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Department of Justice Trial Attorneys Lauren Britsch and Lauren Kupersmith of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS).
An Indictment, Information, or Criminal Complaint is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
PHILADELPHIA – United States Attorney William M. McSwain announced that Carlos Matchett, 30, of Atlantic City, NJ; Khalif Miller, 25, of Philadelphia, PA; and Anthony David Ale Smith, 29, of Philadelphia, PA, have been charged by Indictment for the arson of a Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) vehicle, and in a separate case, that Ayoub Tabri, 24, of Arlington, VA, has been charged by Indictment for the arson of a Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) vehicle. Both incidents occurred during violent civil unrest in Philadelphia on May 30, 2020.
Following peaceful protests in Philadelphia in the early afternoon of May 30, 2020 in response to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN, civil unrest began to unfold later that afternoon that resulted in widespread looting, burglary, arson, destruction of property, and other violent acts.
On that day, PPD Civil Affairs Car C-109 was parked on the north side of City Hall near Broad and Market Streets. During the violent episodes that began in the vicinity of City Hall that afternoon, defendants Matchett, Miller, and Smith allegedly placed combustible materials into the vehicle, after a road flare placed in the vehicle started a fire. As a result of these acts, the PPD vehicle was destroyed. A grand jury charged each of the defendants with two counts of arson, and one count of obstructing law enforcement in the commission of their duties during a civil disorder.
On the same day and at roughly the same time, PSP troopers responded to the intersection of Broad and Vine Streets, a few blocks north of City Hall. PSP placed two patrol sport utility vehicles – marked as K1-7 and K1-17 – at the on-ramp for I-676 in an effort to prevent protestors from gaining access to the highway. Soon thereafter, a group of individuals began attacking the two vehicles. The windows of the vehicles were shattered and PSP equipment stored inside was stolen, including road flares, fire extinguishers, and “riot bags” containing additional PSP-issued equipment. Tabri allegedly threw a lit road flare into K1-17, igniting a fire that engulfed the SUV. A grand jury charged the defendant with two counts of arson, and one count of obstructing law enforcement in the commission of their duties during a civil disorder.
“I want to be clear that we at the U.S. Attorney’s Office support peaceful protest – indeed, it is part of our job to protect First Amendment freedoms. We take that responsibility very seriously. But violence is not speech. There is no right to riot, loot, rob, destroy or commit arson. If you engage in violent civil unrest and commit a federal crime in this District, we will come after you as hard as we can because residents deserve safe and secure neighborhoods, not mayhem.”
“The FBI remains committed to protecting the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment freedoms,” said Philadelphia Division Special Agent in Charge Michael J. Driscoll. “Violence and destruction of property jeopardize the rights and safety of all citizens, including peaceful demonstrators. Today’s indictments send the message that if you seek to hijack peaceful protests to pursue violent and extremist agendas, the FBI and its law enforcement partners will bring you to justice.”
“These individuals were not in the City to participate in a peaceful protest: instead, it appears they posed as protestors and allegedly set fire to a Pennsylvania State Police vehicle and a Philadelphia Police vehicle,” said Matthew Varisco, Special Agent in Charge of ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division. “Arson is an extremely violent act which presents a tremendous threat to public safety. We will continue to work with our local, state and federal partners to seek justice during these tumultuous times.”
“Thousands peacefully assembled and protested throughout Philadelphia following the killing of George Floyd in May of 2020,” said Brian A. Michael, Special Agent in Charge for HSI Philadelphia. “Today’s indictments demonstrate how law enforcement successfully works together to pursue violent opportunists who commit criminal acts that undermine the peaceful protestors’ message. HSI works closely with federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to investigate, identify and hold accountable individuals who commit malicious, destructive, unlawful acts.”
“The Pennsylvania State Police thanks all of the partnering local, state, and federal agencies that assisted with this investigation,” said Captain James Kemm, commander of the Pennsylvania State Police Troop K. “We respect the public’s right to peacefully protest, but violence and destruction of property will not be tolerated.”
If convicted, all four defendants face a mandatory minimum of seven years in prison, and a maximum possible sentence of 65 years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $750,000.
The Matchett, Miller, and Smith case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the Philadelphia Police Department; and the Philadelphia Fire Marshal’s Office; with assistance from the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. The Tabri case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and the Pennsylvania State Police. Both cases are being prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
An indictment, information, or criminal complaint is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – An Aurora, Mo., man pleaded guilty in federal court today to his role in a conspiracy to distribute large amounts of methamphetamine in Barry County, Mo.
Brian E. Hall, 45, pleaded guilty before U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge David P. Rush to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.
By pleading guilty today, Hall admitted he participated in the drug-trafficking conspiracy from Nov. 1, 2020, to April 28, 2022.
During the investigation, law enforcement officers seized multiple kilograms of methamphetamine from various members of the drug-trafficking organization, including Hall. Hall admitted that he was distributing large amounts of methamphetamine in the southwest Missouri region. Hall also admitted he has traveled to Arizona and Oklahoma numerous times to purchase 20 to 50 pounds of methamphetamine at a time and bring it back to Missouri.
A confidential informant assisted in the controlled buy of 413 grams (approximately one pound) of methamphetamine from Hall on June 16, 2021, for $1,400. A confidential informant assisted in the controlled buy of 431.27 grams of methamphetamine from Hall on June 22, 2021, for $3,500.
Investigators also interviewed a property owner who was involved in an owner-financed sale of a house and storage units to Hall for $10,000 per month, paid in cash. The property owner was aware that Hall sold methamphetamine and did not have legitimate income to purchase the properties. Hall met the property owner in February and in March 2022 to make the $10,000 payments, which were relinquished to the government.
On April 28, 2022, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Hall’s residence. Officers seized seven pounds of methamphetamine, a stolen Taurus 9mm semi-automatic pistol that was found underneath Hall’s bed, approximately $57,000 in cash found inside a safe, and drug paraphernalia used for the packaging and sale of methamphetamine. Under the terms of today’s plea agreement, Hall must forfeit the $57,000 to the government.
Hall told investigators he was expecting a large delivery of methamphetamine that evening, and that he planned to give the courier the $57,000. At approximately 10 p.m., a black Toyota Camry arrived at Hall’s residence. The driver and a passenger were immediately arrested, and officers seized approximately 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of methamphetamine.
Under federal statutes, Hall is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in federal prison without parole, up to a sentence of life in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica R. Eatmon. It was investigated by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Combined Ozark Multi-jurisdictional Enforcement Team (COMET), the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, the Barry County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, the Ozarks Drug Enforcement Team, and the Stone County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, the Greene County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, the Bolivar, Mo., Police Department, the Cassville, Mo., Police Department, the Kimberling City, Mo., Police Department, and the Springfield, Mo., Police Department.
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Nixa, Missouri, physician pleaded guilty in federal court yesterday to making a false statement to Medicare to obtain insurance coverage for a fentanyl prescription and to conspiring with others to use his DEA registration number to issue Schedule II controlled substances to patients in his absence.
Randall Halley, 65, pleaded guilty before U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge David P. Rush on Tuesday, Dec. 7, to one count of making a false statement related to healthcare and one count of conspiracy to use a registration number issued to another person in connection with the distribution of a controlled substance.
Halley, a licensed physician, was employed by Ozark Community Hospital - Christian County Clinic in Nixa from 2004 to June 2019. He also was employed from 2009 to 2017 as the medical director at Magnolia Square, a skilled nursing facility in Springfield, Mo.
By pleading guilty yesterday, Halley admitted that he prescribed Subsys, a fentanyl spray manufactured by Insys Therapeutics, to a patient. Halley submitted a request to Medicare for payment coverage of the prescription, falsely stating that the patient had a diagnosis of cancer. Halley knew that the patient did not have a diagnosis of cancer at that time, and was not being treated for breakthrough cancer-related pain – two conditions that Medicare required for payment coverage of Subsys. Due to Halley’s false statement, Medicare paid a total of $11,945 to cover the prescription and subsequent Subsys prescriptions.
Halley also admitted that he conspired with others at the clinic to use his registration number so they could provide prescription medication in his absence, including Schedule II controlled substances. Halley was scheduled to only be present at the clinic in Nixa on Mondays and Thursdays. Although he was often absent on those days, he still scheduled patients for appointments. In order for the clinic to continue issuing prescriptions in Halley’s absence, he directed others at the clinic to prepare prescriptions ahead of time so that he could sign them several days before the patients’ appointments. On those days when Halley was absent, he directed others at the clinic to give the patients their prescriptions, including Schedule II controlled substances. Due to this illegal conduct, Medicare paid a total of $18,901 to cover the cost of those prescriptions.
Halley specifically admitted to conspiring with Susan Gail Morris, a nurse practitioner; Lily (Nga) Nguyen, a nurse practitioner; Amber Moeschler, a licensed practical nurse; and Kimberly Hoffer, a licensed practical nurse, to use his DEA registration number to distribute Schedule II controlled substances. Morris, Nguyen, and Moeschler have already pleaded guilty to crimes related to their conduct in this conspiracy. Co-defendant Hoffer has pleaded not guilty and is set for trial in February 2022.
Under the terms of today’s plea agreement, Halley will pay a $92,225 fine and $44,887 in restitution to Medicare. The government may seek up to $355,678 in additional restitution to Medicare at the time of Halley’s sentencing hearing for conduct relevant to his false statement involving Subsys prescriptions. Additionally, Halley agreed to refrain from treating medical patients who may require the issuance of prescriptions for controlled substances, throughout the period of any post-sentencing supervision.
Under federal statutes, Halley is subject to a sentence of up to nine years in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Casey Clark and Nhan D. Nguyen. It was investigated by the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – U.S. Attorney Teresa Moore announced today that the Western District of Missouri collected $7,691,991 in criminal and civil actions in Fiscal Year 2022. Of this amount, $5,422,014 was collected in criminal actions and $2,269,977 was collected in civil actions.
Additionally, the Western District of Missouri worked with other U.S. Attorney’s Offices and components of the Department of Justice to collect an additional $5,580,483 in cases pursued jointly by these offices. Of this amount, $45,732 was collected in criminal actions and $5,534,751 was collected in civil actions.
In total, the Western District of Missouri and partner agencies collected a combined total of $13,272,474 in criminal and civil actions and forfeitures in fiscal year 2022.
“The attorneys and support staff in our district’s Monetary Penalties Unit worked diligently to collect millions of dollars in restitution for victims of crime, and to seize the assets of those who sought to profit from their illegal activities,” said U.S. Attorney Teresa Moore. “In our Civil Division, attorneys and staff successfully recovered considerable funds owed to the government as a result of numerous civil judgments.
“Our collections and asset recovery programs, in both the civil and criminal divisions, hold defendants financially accountable for their conduct,” Moore added. “We are committed to ensure that these debts, both to the government and to the victims of crime, are paid in full.”
For example, the Monetary Penalties Unit recovered over $550,000 in criminal penalties from Randall Halley, a Nixa physician who pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to Medicare to obtain insurance coverage for a fentanyl prescription and one count of conspiracy to use his DEA registration number for his employees to issue controlled substances to patients in his absence. Halley took bribes from a drug manufacturer in exchange for prescribing its fentanyl drug to his patients so often that he ranked highest in the state in net sales of the product. Numerous patients received dangerous fentanyl medication they did not need, nor did they qualify for under Medicare, and Medicare was defrauded out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Monetary Penalties Unit also collected over $880,000 in a civil forfeiture action as part of a central Missouri case involving real and personal property that represented criminal proceeds from drug trafficking.
The U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, along with the department’s litigating divisions, are responsible for enforcing and collecting civil and criminal debts owed to the U.S. and criminal debts owed to federal crime victims. The law requires defendants to pay restitution to victims of certain federal crimes who have suffered a physical injury or financial loss. While restitution is paid to the victim, criminal fines and felony assessments are paid to the department’s Crime Victims Fund, which distributes the funds collected to federal and state victim compensation and victim assistance programs.
Additionally, the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Western District of Missouri, working with partner agencies and divisions, collected $3,233,871 in asset forfeiture actions in FY 2022. Forfeited assets deposited into the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund are used to restore funds to crime victims and for a variety of law enforcement purposes.
SAN ANTONIO – A San Antonio man was sentenced in a federal court in San Antonio today to 360 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl resulting in the death of 20-year-old Isabella Render.
According to court documents, Patrick James Hall, 29, met Render on Oct. 28, 2020, in a San Antonio hotel room located off I-10, where he had been selling the drug in the form of small round blue pills disguised as oxycodone. Render had been unconscious in Hall’s hotel room for an extended period when Hall returned a missed call to Render’s friend. Hall notified the friend that she needed to pick up Render from the hotel because she had overdosed. He then left the location without calling for emergency services. Render’s friend, however, did alert emergency services who pronounced Render dead upon their arrival. She had been deceased for some time. A toxicology report showed that Render had an amount of fentanyl in her blood that exceeded 24 times a fatal dose.
Hall was arrested on Nov. 19, 2020 on State charges. Text messages sent from his phone confirmed that he had been selling the pills to multiple individuals at the time of the Render’s death, and that he himself had overdosed on the pills earlier in the month. Hall was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury on four counts related to possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute.
“Fentanyl has proven to be a very deadly drug that is being used to poison our communities and this sentence reinforces our position that those who traffic it will be held accountable for the harm they cause,” said U.S. Attorney Jaime Esparza for the Western District of Texas. “My hope is that families of fentanyl victims—in this case, Isabella’s family—can see these sentences as progress and that they can find some measure of relief through our justice system. I also thank our law enforcement partners at the Drug Enforcement Administration and the San Antonio Police Department for their successful investigative work in this case.”
“Today's sentencing of Patrick Hall represents the culmination of hard work by our local law enforcement partners and federal prosecutors," said Special Agent in Charge Daniel C. Comeaux for the DEA’s Houston Division. “I want to provide my most sincere condolences to the Bove family. While we realize nothing eliminates the pain and grief they have endured, we hope the knowledge that Hall is being held accountable for the death of their daughter, Isabella Render, and his inability to harm others will bring them some comfort.”
The DEA and SAPD investigated the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Amy Hail prosecuted the case.
SAN FRANCISCO – Charges were filed today in a criminal complaint alleging that Alan Varela and Bill Gilmartin, the president and vice president, respectively, of a Bay Area civil engineering and construction firm, bribed Mohammed Nuru, formerly San Francisco’s Director of Public Works, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson, and Siddhartha Patel, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Additional facts regarding the investigation and charges can be found here: https://youtu.be/J1EJRrM0k3g
According to an affidavit filed in connection with the complaint, Varela and Gilmartin provided gifts and benefits to Nuru since at least as early as 2013, including, among other things, $20,000 in meals and a tractor worth $40,000 for Nuru to use at his personal vacation home. In exchange for these benefits, Nuru allegedly provided Varela and Gilmartin with a steady stream of illegal inside information about a lucrative San Francisco public contract to build and operate an asphalt recycling plant that Varela and Gilmartin sought.
Additional documents filed today in court indicate that two other contractors previously charged in the ongoing public corruption probe intend to plead guilty. In one case, a filed plea agreement indicates that Balmore Hernandez, the CEO of a local construction company, will plead guilty and has agreed to cooperate in the government’s investigation. In the other case, local contractor Florence Kong will also plead guilty, and will admit that she bribed Nuru with, among other things, a Rolex watch worth more than $35,000, in return for which Nuru corruptly helped Kong obtain San Francisco public contracts, including work at her recycling facility. Kong will also admit lying to the FBI about her interactions with Nuru. Kong’s guilty plea is not a cooperation plea.
Varela and Gilmartin are the seventh and eighth defendants to be charged as part of the graft probe. Hernandez and Kong are the third and fourth defendants to plead guilty. Charges were previously filed against Nuru and local restaurateur Nick Bovis on January 28, 2020. In June of this year, charges were filed against Hernandez and Kong, as well as against Sandra Zuniga, the Mayor’s Fix-It Director. Charges were also filed in June against Walter Wong, a local contractor and permit expediter. Hernandez joins Wong and Bovis in agreeing to cooperate with the government’s investigation.
“Public works contracts in San Francisco are supposed to be awarded on a merit system in San Francisco for the benefit of the residents and taxpayers of San Francisco,” said U.S. Attorney Anderson. “The complaint filed today alleges that this merit system was undermined with insider information and favorable treatment. Instead of awarding public works contracts on the basis of merit, the defendants allegedly sought to secure significant profits on the basis of bribes and backroom deals.”
“While our investigation is ongoing, I hope the resolutions in the Hernandez and Kong cases will help restore confidence in our city governments for Bay Area residents,” said assistant SAC Patel. “San Francisco City Hall can and will function without the influence of the corruption we have seen unravel in this case.”
Varela and Gilmartin face a maximum statutory penalty of up to 10 years in prison, as well as fines that could go as high as $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the alleged bribery scheme. In addition, the court may order additional terms of supervised release and restitution. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553
The prosecution is being handled by the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of California’s new Corporate Fraud Strike Force and is the result of an investigation by the FBI.
SAN FRANCISCO – Charges were unsealed today alleging that Walter Wing Lok Wong conspired for over 15 years to defraud the public of their right to the honest services of San Francisco city officials, including Mohammed Nuru, the former head of the San Francisco Department of Public Works, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson, John F. Bennett, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Kareem Carter, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge.
According to the information, Wong, 70, of San Francisco, is alleged to have conspired with NURU and other unnamed City officials since as early as 2004 to defraud the public through a scheme involving bribery, kickbacks, and the concealment of material information. A second count in the information alleges that Wong also conspired with Nuru and others to engage in money laundering, to disguise and conceal the proceeds of fraud.
A document filed in court along with the information indicates that Wong intends to change his plea to guilty on both counts as early as July 6. As part of that guilty plea, according to the terms of a plea agreement filed on the docket, Wong will provide information, documents, and testimony to the ongoing federal investigation into corruption in San Francisco city government, in exchange for the possibility of reducing his sentence. The conduct underlying the crimes to which Wong was charged were submitted to the court in a separate “Exhibit A” to the plea agreement that was filed under seal and thus is not available to the public. However, government officials have confirmed that Wong is the person previously described as “Contractor 2” in the 75-page complaint affidavit filed earlier this year against Nuru.
Wong is the sixth defendant to be charged as part of the graft probe, and the second to plead guilty. Charges were previously filed against Nuru and local restaurateur Nick Bovis on January 28, 2020. Earlier this month, additional charges were filed against Sandra Zuniga, the Mayor’s Fix-It Director, and contractors Balmore Hernandez and Florence Kong. Bovis has since pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government.
“The charged conspiracy that we announce today is breathtaking in its duration and scope, alleging more than a decade of fraud and money laundering involving one of San Francisco’s highest ranking public employees, one of its most well-known permit expediters, and other city officials,” said U.S. Attorney Anderson. He added, “As this investigation continues, the breadth and depth of the identified misconduct is widening. To everyone with a piece of public corruption in San Francisco, please understand that here in federal court we will distinguish sharply between those who cooperate and those who do not. If you love San Francisco, and regret your misconduct, you still have an opportunity to do the right thing. Run, don’t walk, to the FBI, before it is too late for you to cooperate.”
“Today’s announcement is part of a complex, ongoing FBI investigation into public corruption in San Francisco city government,” said FBI’s Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett. “This type of unscrupulous behavior erodes trust in our municipal departments and will not be tolerated. The FBI is committed to investigating any individual or company involved and hold them accountable.”
“Pay-to-play schemes destroy the public’s confidence in government,” said Kareem Carter, Special Agent in Charge IRS Criminal Investigation. “And as we follow the money we are discovering all the players in this scheme, and how this game was played. IRS CI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure that any individual or company involved in this scheme shall be held accountable for their actions and not go unpunished.”
Wong faces a maximum statutory penalty of up to 20 years in prison on each count, as well as fines that could go as high as $500,000 or twice the amount of funds involved in the money laundering conspiracy. In addition, the court may order additional terms of supervised release and restitution. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553
The prosecution is being handled by the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of California’s new Corporate Fraud Strike Force and is the result of an investigation by the FBI.
SAN FRANCISCO – Three more people have been charged with crimes related to an investigation into corruption in San Francisco’s City Hall, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson; Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett of the San Francisco Division; and Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, Special Agent in Charge Kareem Carter. The three are San Francisco’s Fix-It Director and Director of the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services, Sandra Zuniga; longtime employee of San Francisco’s Department of Public Works and now Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of San Francisco-based construction engineering firm AzulWorks, Inc., Balmore Hernandez; and San Francisco-based construction company owner Florence Kong.
The criminal charges all relate to the arrest and charging in January of San Francisco’s former Director of the Department of Public Works (DPW), Mohammed Nuru, on public corruption charges. Nuru was charged by criminal complaint for an alleged scheme to bribe a San Francisco Airport Commissioner. The complaint against Nuru also alleged he engaged in several additional schemes, including obtaining free and discounted labor and construction equipment from contractors to help him build a personal vacation home in Stonyford, Calif., while those contractors were also engaging in business with the City. The three complaints unsealed today provide numerous details of the charges leveled in the complaint against Nuru as well as a description of additional crimes that allegedly were committed.
“The federal investigation into City Hall corruption has not been sidetracked by Covid-19 or other recent traumatic events,” said U.S. Attorney Anderson. “Today’s criminal complaints will not be the last. To everyone with a piece of this corruption, again I urge you to help make things right for San Francisco. Run, don’t walk to the FBI, before it is too late for you to cooperate.”
The complaint against Zuniga, 44, of South San Francisco, alleges that she both knew about and benefitted from Nuru’s schemes. In addition, the complaint alleges Zuniga conspired for years with Nuru to launder the proceeds of his honest services wire fraud.
According to the complaint against Zuniga, she was Nuru’s longtime romantic partner and he described to her some of the illegal actions he took in his official position. For example, Nuru allegedly described to Zuniga the actions he took to benefit a billionaire in China who was developing a large multi-million dollar mixed-use project in San Francisco, in exchange for travel and lodging, high-end liquor, and other gifts and benefits.
Further, the complaint against Zuniga charges that she laundered proceeds from Nuru’s schemes in a variety of transactions over a period of several years. The complaint points out that from March 2014 to January 2020, Zuniga made over $135,000 in cash deposits, on top of her City of San Francisco paycheck. She also deposited over $8,000 in checks from associates of Nuru. During the same period, she then engaged in a variety of transactions that benefitted Nuru. For example, for more than three years, Zuniga paid the monthly mortgage on a portion of Nuru’s Colusa County vacation home. She allegedly did so by depositing approximately $1,000 in cash into her checking account almost every month, and then immediately writing a check for $1,000 to Nuru’s lender.
In another example of alleged money laundering, the complaint describes how Zuniga received a $5,000 check in September 2018 from a contractor who had extensive business with DPW and the City of San Francisco, and then used the funds to benefit Nuru. According to the complaint, Zuniga deposited the contractor’s check into her personal checking account and then executed a series of transactions through multiple banks, which the complaint alleges was for the purpose of concealing the source and nature of the payment. In one set of transactions, Zuniga allegedly paid a $2,400 construction bill on Nuru’s vacation home by writing a $2,500 check to herself, depositing it into another bank account, and then sending a check from that account to the contractor as soon as Nuru sent her the bill. Ultimately, according to the complaint, Zuniga sent an email to Nuru reporting to him how she had used the contractor’s $5,000 payment.
Further, the complaint against Zuniga describes how she benefitted from some of Nuru’s schemes. For example, Zuniga traveled with Nuru on a lavish two-week trip to South America in fall 2018, complete with business class flights and a stay at the Ritz-Carlton in Santiago, Chile, all paid for, or heavily subsidized by, a contractor doing business with the City.
The criminal complaint filed against Hernandez, 55, of Burlingame, describes how Hernandez used his relationship with Nuru to obtain advantages with the City for his construction engineering firm. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hernandez established a continuing course of conduct in which tens of thousands of dollars in labor and materials were provided to Nuru in exchange for his assistance with public contracts and City approvals. In addition, the complaint alleges Hernandez sought Nuru’s assistance to obtain a long term supply contract and lease agreement with the City to operate an asphalt plant on land owned by the Port of San Francisco.
According to the complaint against Hernandez, Nuru owned two adjacent 10-acre parcels of land in Stonyford, Calif., on which Hernandez built a home and made other improvements. Hernandez and Nuru referred to the property as “the ranch.” Between late 2016 and the end of 2018, Hernandez allegedly supplied in excess of $250,000 in labor and materials to help Nuru build the home and make related improvements on the ranch. For example, the complaint describes how Hernandez supplied Nuru with more than $50,000 worth of tile and stone for the vacation home and then asked Nuru for help saving AzulWorks’ bid for a multi-million dollar project for which it had submitted an unqualified proposal. AzulWorks ultimately won that contract and, based on publicly available data, received more than $1.9 million from the City in connection with the project. The complaint also describes how Hernandez sought help from Nuru so that he could appeal an adverse DPW order preventing Hernandez’s company from removing trees at a job site on Van Ness Avenue.
With respect to Kong, 62, of Hillsborough, the complaint filed against her charges that she lied to FBI investigators during the probe of Nuru’s schemes. Kong owns two companies that do business with San Francisco: a construction company called Kwan Wo Ironworks and a construction debris recycling company called SFR Recovery Inc. The complaint describes recorded calls in which Kong sought to obtain business for her companies from DPW. In addition, the complaint alleges that Kong provided Nuru with cash, a Rolex watch worth more than $40,000, expensive meals, and the installation of a gate for his vacation home. Nevertheless, according to the complaint, Kong denied ever discussing business with Nuru. Kong also claimed that Nuru never helped her to obtain contracts with the City; this despite the fact that intercepted calls demonstrate that Nuru helped her with construction contracts for city facilities.
The charges contained in the criminal complaints against Zuniga, Hernandez, and Kong are mere allegations. As in any criminal case, each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
Zuniga is charged with one count of conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). If convicted, she faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison, a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transactions, or both. Hernandez is charged with bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2). If convicted, the maximum statutory penalty is 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. Kong is charged with making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). If convicted, the maximum statutory penalty is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
Kong and Hernandez made their initial appearances in federal court today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, and are expected to make another appearance before the magistrate judge on June 15th for further proceedings to finalize the size and type of bond the magistrate judge will require to secure their release. Zuniga is scheduled to make her initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Beeler on June 10, 2020.
The case is being prosecuted by the Corporate Fraud Strike Force of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The case is being investigated by the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
SAN FRANCISCO – Charges were filed today in a criminal complaint alleging that Alan Varela and Bill Gilmartin, the president and vice president, respectively, of a Bay Area civil engineering and construction firm, bribed Mohammed Nuru, formerly San Francisco’s Director of Public Works, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson, and Siddhartha Patel, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Additional facts regarding the investigation and charges can be found here: https://youtu.be/J1EJRrM0k3g
According to an affidavit filed in connection with the complaint, Varela and Gilmartin provided gifts and benefits to Nuru since at least as early as 2013, including, among other things, $20,000 in meals and a tractor worth $40,000 for Nuru to use at his personal vacation home. In exchange for these benefits, Nuru allegedly provided Varela and Gilmartin with a steady stream of illegal inside information about a lucrative San Francisco public contract to build and operate an asphalt recycling plant that Varela and Gilmartin sought.
Additional documents filed today in court indicate that two other contractors previously charged in the ongoing public corruption probe intend to plead guilty. In one case, a filed plea agreement indicates that Balmore Hernandez, the CEO of a local construction company, will plead guilty and has agreed to cooperate in the government’s investigation. In the other case, local contractor Florence Kong will also plead guilty, and will admit that she bribed Nuru with, among other things, a Rolex watch worth more than $35,000, in return for which Nuru corruptly helped Kong obtain San Francisco public contracts, including work at her recycling facility. Kong will also admit lying to the FBI about her interactions with Nuru. Kong’s guilty plea is not a cooperation plea.
Varela and Gilmartin are the seventh and eighth defendants to be charged as part of the graft probe. Hernandez and Kong are the third and fourth defendants to plead guilty. Charges were previously filed against Nuru and local restaurateur Nick Bovis on January 28, 2020. In June of this year, charges were filed against Hernandez and Kong, as well as against Sandra Zuniga, the Mayor’s Fix-It Director. Charges were also filed in June against Walter Wong, a local contractor and permit expediter. Hernandez joins Wong and Bovis in agreeing to cooperate with the government’s investigation.
“Public works contracts in San Francisco are supposed to be awarded on a merit system in San Francisco for the benefit of the residents and taxpayers of San Francisco,” said U.S. Attorney Anderson. “The complaint filed today alleges that this merit system was undermined with insider information and favorable treatment. Instead of awarding public works contracts on the basis of merit, the defendants allegedly sought to secure significant profits on the basis of bribes and backroom deals.”
“While our investigation is ongoing, I hope the resolutions in the Hernandez and Kong cases will help restore confidence in our city governments for Bay Area residents,” said assistant SAC Patel. “San Francisco City Hall can and will function without the influence of the corruption we have seen unravel in this case.”
Varela and Gilmartin face a maximum statutory penalty of up to 10 years in prison, as well as fines that could go as high as $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the alleged bribery scheme. In addition, the court may order additional terms of supervised release and restitution. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553
The prosecution is being handled by the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of California’s new Corporate Fraud Strike Force and is the result of an investigation by the FBI.
SAN FRANCISCO – Charges were unsealed today alleging that Walter Wing Lok Wong conspired for over 15 years to defraud the public of their right to the honest services of San Francisco city officials, including Mohammed Nuru, the former head of the San Francisco Department of Public Works, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson, John F. Bennett, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Kareem Carter, IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge.
According to the information, Wong, 70, of San Francisco, is alleged to have conspired with NURU and other unnamed City officials since as early as 2004 to defraud the public through a scheme involving bribery, kickbacks, and the concealment of material information. A second count in the information alleges that Wong also conspired with Nuru and others to engage in money laundering, to disguise and conceal the proceeds of fraud.
A document filed in court along with the information indicates that Wong intends to change his plea to guilty on both counts as early as July 6. As part of that guilty plea, according to the terms of a plea agreement filed on the docket, Wong will provide information, documents, and testimony to the ongoing federal investigation into corruption in San Francisco city government, in exchange for the possibility of reducing his sentence. The conduct underlying the crimes to which Wong was charged were submitted to the court in a separate “Exhibit A” to the plea agreement that was filed under seal and thus is not available to the public. However, government officials have confirmed that Wong is the person previously described as “Contractor 2” in the 75-page complaint affidavit filed earlier this year against Nuru.
Wong is the sixth defendant to be charged as part of the graft probe, and the second to plead guilty. Charges were previously filed against Nuru and local restaurateur Nick Bovis on January 28, 2020. Earlier this month, additional charges were filed against Sandra Zuniga, the Mayor’s Fix-It Director, and contractors Balmore Hernandez and Florence Kong. Bovis has since pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the government.
“The charged conspiracy that we announce today is breathtaking in its duration and scope, alleging more than a decade of fraud and money laundering involving one of San Francisco’s highest ranking public employees, one of its most well-known permit expediters, and other city officials,” said U.S. Attorney Anderson. He added, “As this investigation continues, the breadth and depth of the identified misconduct is widening. To everyone with a piece of public corruption in San Francisco, please understand that here in federal court we will distinguish sharply between those who cooperate and those who do not. If you love San Francisco, and regret your misconduct, you still have an opportunity to do the right thing. Run, don’t walk, to the FBI, before it is too late for you to cooperate.”
“Today’s announcement is part of a complex, ongoing FBI investigation into public corruption in San Francisco city government,” said FBI’s Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett. “This type of unscrupulous behavior erodes trust in our municipal departments and will not be tolerated. The FBI is committed to investigating any individual or company involved and hold them accountable.”
“Pay-to-play schemes destroy the public’s confidence in government,” said Kareem Carter, Special Agent in Charge IRS Criminal Investigation. “And as we follow the money we are discovering all the players in this scheme, and how this game was played. IRS CI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to ensure that any individual or company involved in this scheme shall be held accountable for their actions and not go unpunished.”
Wong faces a maximum statutory penalty of up to 20 years in prison on each count, as well as fines that could go as high as $500,000 or twice the amount of funds involved in the money laundering conspiracy. In addition, the court may order additional terms of supervised release and restitution. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553
The prosecution is being handled by the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of California’s new Corporate Fraud Strike Force and is the result of an investigation by the FBI.
SAN FRANCISCO – Three more people have been charged with crimes related to an investigation into corruption in San Francisco’s City Hall, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson; Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett of the San Francisco Division; and Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, Special Agent in Charge Kareem Carter. The three are San Francisco’s Fix-It Director and Director of the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services, Sandra Zuniga; longtime employee of San Francisco’s Department of Public Works and now Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of San Francisco-based construction engineering firm AzulWorks, Inc., Balmore Hernandez; and San Francisco-based construction company owner Florence Kong.
The criminal charges all relate to the arrest and charging in January of San Francisco’s former Director of the Department of Public Works (DPW), Mohammed Nuru, on public corruption charges. Nuru was charged by criminal complaint for an alleged scheme to bribe a San Francisco Airport Commissioner. The complaint against Nuru also alleged he engaged in several additional schemes, including obtaining free and discounted labor and construction equipment from contractors to help him build a personal vacation home in Stonyford, Calif., while those contractors were also engaging in business with the City. The three complaints unsealed today provide numerous details of the charges leveled in the complaint against Nuru as well as a description of additional crimes that allegedly were committed.
“The federal investigation into City Hall corruption has not been sidetracked by Covid-19 or other recent traumatic events,” said U.S. Attorney Anderson. “Today’s criminal complaints will not be the last. To everyone with a piece of this corruption, again I urge you to help make things right for San Francisco. Run, don’t walk to the FBI, before it is too late for you to cooperate.”
The complaint against Zuniga, 44, of South San Francisco, alleges that she both knew about and benefitted from Nuru’s schemes. In addition, the complaint alleges Zuniga conspired for years with Nuru to launder the proceeds of his honest services wire fraud.
According to the complaint against Zuniga, she was Nuru’s longtime romantic partner and he described to her some of the illegal actions he took in his official position. For example, Nuru allegedly described to Zuniga the actions he took to benefit a billionaire in China who was developing a large multi-million dollar mixed-use project in San Francisco, in exchange for travel and lodging, high-end liquor, and other gifts and benefits.
Further, the complaint against Zuniga charges that she laundered proceeds from Nuru’s schemes in a variety of transactions over a period of several years. The complaint points out that from March 2014 to January 2020, Zuniga made over $135,000 in cash deposits, on top of her City of San Francisco paycheck. She also deposited over $8,000 in checks from associates of Nuru. During the same period, she then engaged in a variety of transactions that benefitted Nuru. For example, for more than three years, Zuniga paid the monthly mortgage on a portion of Nuru’s Colusa County vacation home. She allegedly did so by depositing approximately $1,000 in cash into her checking account almost every month, and then immediately writing a check for $1,000 to Nuru’s lender.
In another example of alleged money laundering, the complaint describes how Zuniga received a $5,000 check in September 2018 from a contractor who had extensive business with DPW and the City of San Francisco, and then used the funds to benefit Nuru. According to the complaint, Zuniga deposited the contractor’s check into her personal checking account and then executed a series of transactions through multiple banks, which the complaint alleges was for the purpose of concealing the source and nature of the payment. In one set of transactions, Zuniga allegedly paid a $2,400 construction bill on Nuru’s vacation home by writing a $2,500 check to herself, depositing it into another bank account, and then sending a check from that account to the contractor as soon as Nuru sent her the bill. Ultimately, according to the complaint, Zuniga sent an email to Nuru reporting to him how she had used the contractor’s $5,000 payment.
Further, the complaint against Zuniga describes how she benefitted from some of Nuru’s schemes. For example, Zuniga traveled with Nuru on a lavish two-week trip to South America in fall 2018, complete with business class flights and a stay at the Ritz-Carlton in Santiago, Chile, all paid for, or heavily subsidized by, a contractor doing business with the City.
The criminal complaint filed against Hernandez, 55, of Burlingame, describes how Hernandez used his relationship with Nuru to obtain advantages with the City for his construction engineering firm. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hernandez established a continuing course of conduct in which tens of thousands of dollars in labor and materials were provided to Nuru in exchange for his assistance with public contracts and City approvals. In addition, the complaint alleges Hernandez sought Nuru’s assistance to obtain a long term supply contract and lease agreement with the City to operate an asphalt plant on land owned by the Port of San Francisco.
According to the complaint against Hernandez, Nuru owned two adjacent 10-acre parcels of land in Stonyford, Calif., on which Hernandez built a home and made other improvements. Hernandez and Nuru referred to the property as “the ranch.” Between late 2016 and the end of 2018, Hernandez allegedly supplied in excess of $250,000 in labor and materials to help Nuru build the home and make related improvements on the ranch. For example, the complaint describes how Hernandez supplied Nuru with more than $50,000 worth of tile and stone for the vacation home and then asked Nuru for help saving AzulWorks’ bid for a multi-million dollar project for which it had submitted an unqualified proposal. AzulWorks ultimately won that contract and, based on publicly available data, received more than $1.9 million from the City in connection with the project. The complaint also describes how Hernandez sought help from Nuru so that he could appeal an adverse DPW order preventing Hernandez’s company from removing trees at a job site on Van Ness Avenue.
With respect to Kong, 62, of Hillsborough, the complaint filed against her charges that she lied to FBI investigators during the probe of Nuru’s schemes. Kong owns two companies that do business with San Francisco: a construction company called Kwan Wo Ironworks and a construction debris recycling company called SFR Recovery Inc. The complaint describes recorded calls in which Kong sought to obtain business for her companies from DPW. In addition, the complaint alleges that Kong provided Nuru with cash, a Rolex watch worth more than $40,000, expensive meals, and the installation of a gate for his vacation home. Nevertheless, according to the complaint, Kong denied ever discussing business with Nuru. Kong also claimed that Nuru never helped her to obtain contracts with the City; this despite the fact that intercepted calls demonstrate that Nuru helped her with construction contracts for city facilities.
The charges contained in the criminal complaints against Zuniga, Hernandez, and Kong are mere allegations. As in any criminal case, each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
Zuniga is charged with one count of conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). If convicted, she faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison, a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transactions, or both. Hernandez is charged with bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2). If convicted, the maximum statutory penalty is 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. Kong is charged with making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). If convicted, the maximum statutory penalty is five years in prison and a fine of $250,000. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
Kong and Hernandez made their initial appearances in federal court today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, and are expected to make another appearance before the magistrate judge on June 15th for further proceedings to finalize the size and type of bond the magistrate judge will require to secure their release. Zuniga is scheduled to make her initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Beeler on June 10, 2020.
The case is being prosecuted by the Corporate Fraud Strike Force of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The case is being investigated by the FBI and IRS Criminal Investigation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
GREENEVILLE, Tenn. – On March 14, 2018, Dr. Abdelrahman Mohamed, 64, and Cecilia Manacsa, 59, both of Morristown, Tennessee, were sentenced by the Honorable J. Ronnie Greer, U.S. District Judge, to serve 36 months and 16 months respectively in federal prison. In addition to his prison sentence, Mohamed also paid $730,000 in restitution.
Mohamed and Manacsa both pleaded guilty in September 2017, to an 11-count information charging them with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and 10 counts of health care fraud.
Mohamed was the owner and operator of Hamblen Neuroscience Center (HNC), a neurology and pain management facility located in Morristown, Tennessee. Manacsa, his wife, worked at HNC as a supervisor of various employees, including the employee responsible for submitting bills to Medicare and Medicaid (known as TennCare in the state of Tennessee). A detailed account of their offenses is included in the information and plea agreements on file with the U.S. District Court.
Mohamed, who was the only physician on staff at HNC, provided medical treatment to a variety of patients, most of whom sought treatment for chronic pain and had health insurance provided by TennCare or Medicare. Between January 2012 and September 2016 Mohamed and Manacsa developed a scheme to schedule far more patients per day than could be attended to by Mohamed. On average, they scheduled between 40 and 60 pain management patients per day, during the estimated six-hour period that Mohamed worked. To deal with the high volume, on many occasions staff members were instructed to line up the patients in the hallway outside of Mohamed's office, escort the first patient into the office for a one to two minute open-door meeting, then hand Mohamed a partially completed prescription for an opiate pain management medication, which he signed and gave to the patient. This process was repeated until all waiting patients had received a prescription for a controlled substance. Each patient was then scheduled for another appointment the following month at which time the process was repeated.
Mohamed admitted that during the fraud he issued thousands of prescriptions for opiate controlled substances and frequently did so on a recurring monthly basis, often for years. He also admitted that when he issued such prescriptions he was doing so outside of the scope of ordinary medical practice.
After these visits, Mohamed and Manacsa instructed HNC staff members to submit fraudulent bills to TennCare and Medicare claiming that they were owed approximately $1,538,000 for services they had not actually provided to these patients. This fraud resulted in Medicare and TennCare paying approximately $733,000 to HNC.
“This case sends a clear message to physicians and other health care providers in the Eastern District of Tennessee that investigating and prosecuting healthcare fraud related to prescription opioids is a top priority for the Department of Justice as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” said J. Douglas Overbey, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. “Our district’s participation in the Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit will provide us with the resources necessary to effectively investigate and prosecute medical providers, such as Mohamed and Manacsa, who are contributing to this epidemic by unlawfully diverting or dispensing opioids outside the scope of acceptable professional practice,” added U.S. Attorney Overbey.
“These defendants enriched themselves at the expense of taxpayers by defrauding Medicare and TennCare,” said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. “Their actions risked the health and safety of patients by prescribing opioids without a comprehensive physical exam. This sentence sends a strong message
that this type of behavior will be dealt with seriously,” added Jackson.
This case was investigated by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Health and Human Services – Office of the Inspector General. Assistance was provided by the Tennessee Department of Health as well as District Attorney General Dan Armstrong and the District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District. Assistant U.S. Attorney T.J. Harker represented the United States.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
BOISE – During the holiday season, online criminals increasingly target Idahoans through online scams and fraud schemes. Today, U.S. Attorney Josh Hurwit, along with the FBI, the Fort Hall Police Department, the Bannock County Prosecuting Attorney’s and Sheriff’s Offices, the Bonneville County Prosecuting Attorney’s and Sheriff’s Offices, the Idaho Falls Police Department, and the Pocatello Police Department, announced their joint “Don’t Click December” Consumer Protection Campaign. The AARP is also participating in the announcement and the awareness campaign.The campaign advises members of the public to exercise skepticism and caution when receiving unsolicited online, email, pop-up, or text communications from unknown or unverified sources. If there is any doubt about a link, message, or attachment, law enforcement cautions: “Don’t Click It.”As part of the campaign, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and their partners will release a public service announcement each week in December leading up to Christmas. In the first PSA, available here, FBI Special Agent in Charge Shohini Sinha, Fort Hall Police Chief Pat Teton, and U.S. Attorney Josh Hurwit introduce “Don’t Click December” and explain some of the ways in which individuals can be targeted.Three additional PSAs will alert the public to common online fraud schemes that Idaho law enforcement has seen affect Idahoans. These schemes are:“QR” scam: This scam targets individuals through corrupt or fictitious QR codes. Often the scammer will email or text a scam QR code in an attempt to trick you. They may even cover up legitimate QR code with their own corrupted code with the goal getting you to visit a bogus website that can steal your information if you log in. Always verify with the restaurant or business if you suspect a QR code is suspicious.“Pig Butchering” scam: In this cryptocurrency investment fraud scam, known as “pig butchering,” victims usually receive communications asking them to deposit money into financial investments using cryptocurrency. After an initial investment, victims receive further communications with a fake account report showing financial gains in order to get them to invest more, but the investments are fake, and all the money is under the control of criminals who ultimately steal the victims’ investments. If you are contacted about an investment opportunity by someone you don’t know through social media, text, or dating sites, Don’t Click It! If the message appears to be from an investment company you actually invest with, check the email address to verify it is from the company you’ve invested with.“Tech support” scam: In this scam, criminals impersonate technology, banking, or government officials to convince victims to share personal information. You could get a pop-up on your computer indicating your accounts have been hacked and to call a number. But that number goes to the scammer who tries to manipulate you to gain access to your computer or accounts and takes your money to fix a non-existent problem. If you get such a request, Don’t Click It. Government entities and legitimate businesses will never call you or send unsolicited pop-up messages to ask for access to your computer.Unfortunately, these are not the only schemes affecting the public, and new schemes arise all the time. Law enforcement hopes that the “Don’t Click December” Consumer Protection Campaign will raise public awareness and encourage individuals to talk to their friends and relatives about not clicking suspicious links, texts, messages, pop-ups, or attachments.“We have witnessed many Idahoans lose their hard-earned money or their entire retirement savings to online scams. And, sadly, this type of crime tends to spike during the holiday season,” said U.S. Attorney Hurwit. “But, together, we can reduce the risks by talking with each other about how to avoid such scams, and I’m grateful to our law enforcement partners and the AARP for joining us in the Don’t Click December campaign. We also encourage Idahoans to report any scams as soon as possible so that law enforcement can investigate and we can bring these vicious online criminals to justice.”“According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, Idahoans lost more than $33 million to various scams last year,” said Special Agent in Charge Shohini Sinha of the Salt Lake City FBI. “As we shop, bank, and stay connected online, it’s important to be alert and aware of internet‑enabled crime. The FBI is proud to partner with our law enforcement partners to share these important safety messages to keep you and your money safe, especially during the busy holiday season.”“We are pleased to join with our partners to raise awareness about online fraud targeting our citizens. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is. If you’re not familiar with it, don’t click on it,” said Pocatello Police Chief Roger Schei.“Increases in technology, especially the use of AI, and the complexity of criminal organizations is making it more challenging for Idahoans to avoid the criminals who want to defraud them,” said AARP Idaho State Director Lupe Wissel. “This initiative is a great way for Idahoans to share information with their friends, family and neighbors to help keep everyone safe from scammers.”The U.S. Attorney’s Office and its law enforcement partners recognize that we all must work to eliminate the stigma individuals may experience if they are victimized. There is no shame to falling victim to an online scheme, which are often designed by professional criminals, sophisticated, and tested repeatedly across the country.For this reason, the “Don’t Click December” Consumer Protection Campaign also publicizes ways to report scams and incidents of fraud to the FBI and local law enforcement.To learn more about these and other scams targeting Americans visit FBI.gov, and if you believe you have been victimized, take-action by reporting it to FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center at IC3.gov or by contacting your local law enforcement agency.###
Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that SAMUEL ALBARRAN, also known as “Sam Dog,” 34, of New Haven, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden in Bridgeport to 85 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, for heroin distribution and firearm possession offenses.
This matter stems from a joint investigation headed by the DEA New Haven Task Force, FBI and New Haven Police Department into the distribution of heroin in New Haven. The investigation, which included the use of court-authorized wiretaps, physical surveillance and controlled purchases of heroin, revealed that ALBARRAN’s brother, Wilson “Pancho” Vasquez, obtained bulk quantities of heroin, processed and packaged the drug with several co-conspirators, and then distributed the drug through a network of street-level distributors operating in the area of Ferry Street, Grand Avenue and Blatchley Avenue in New Haven’s Fair Haven neighborhood.
A series of intercepted calls during the investigation revealed that ALBARRAN agreed to supply Vasquez with 300 grams of heroin.
Law enforcement officers first attempted to arrest ALBARRAN on July 15, 2015. On that date, a search of a New Haven residence connected to ALBARRAN revealed distribution quantities of heroin, cocaine and marijuana; a kilogram press and heroin packaging materials; 9mm and .380 caliber firearms; 9mm ammunition, and more than $21,000 in cash.
ALBARRAN remained a fugitive until February 11, 2016, when he was apprehended in East Haven. He has been detained since his arrest.
On September 15, 2016, ALBARRAN pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, heroin, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Seventeen individuals were charged as a result of this investigation. All 17 have pleaded guilty.
Vasquez is scheduled to be sentenced on June 21, 2017.
The DEA New Haven Task Force includes participants from the New Haven, Hamden, West Haven, North Haven, East Haven, Branford, Ansonia, Meriden and Derby Police Departments, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys H. Gordon Hall and Patrick Caruso.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that GABRIEL ROMERO ESCALERA-ROMERO, 29, a citizen of Honduras, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill to 60 months of imprisonment for trafficking cocaine.
Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the court proceeding occurred via videoconference.
This matter stems from a joint investigation headed by the DEA New Haven Task Force, FBI and New Haven Police Department that included the use of court-authorized wiretaps, controlled purchases of heroin and cocaine, and seizures of bulk heroin and cocaine. The investigation revealed that Duane Filyaw, of New Haven, operated a heroin and cocaine trafficking ring in which he conspired with others to purchase narcotics from suppliers and then distribute the drugs to other suppliers of street-level dealers in and around New Haven. Escalera-Romero, who was residing in Bridgeport, worked with his associate, Neftali Fernandez, to supply Filyaw and others with bulk quantities of cocaine.
During the investigation, law enforcement officers seized more than 500 grams of heroin, more than 300 grams of fentanyl, more than one kilogram of cocaine, three firearms, over $90,000 in cash, vehicles, jewelry and precious metals.
On April 19, 2018, a grand jury in New Haven returned an indictment charging Escalera-Romero, Filyaw, Fernandez and 16 other individuals with narcotics trafficking offenses. Escalera-Romero and several other members of the conspiracy were arrested on April 25, 2018.
Escalera-Romero has been detained since his arrest. On January 16, 2020, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine.
Escalera-Romero faces deportation proceedings when he completes his prison term.
Filyaw and Hernandez have pleaded guilty and await sentencing.
The DEA New Haven Task Force includes participants from the U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, and the New Haven, Hamden, West Haven, North Haven, Branford, Ansonia, Meriden, Derby, Middletown, Naugatuck and Waterbury Police Departments. The Connecticut Department of Correction, Milford Police Department and East Haven Police Department have assisted the investigation.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys H. Gordon Hall and Patrick F. Caruso.
Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that WILSON VASQUEZ, also known as “Will” and “Pancho,” 44, of New Haven, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden in Bridgeport to 151 months of imprisonment, followed by four years of supervised release, for heading a large heroin distribution ring.
This matter stems from a joint investigation headed by the DEA New Haven Task Force, FBI and New Haven Police Department into the distribution of heroin in New Haven. The investigation, which included the use of court-authorized wiretaps, physical surveillance and controlled purchases of heroin, revealed that VASQUEZ obtained bulk quantities of heroin, processed and packaged the drug with several co-conspirators, and then distributed the drug through a network of street-level distributors operating in the area of Ferry Street, Grand Avenue and Blatchley Avenue in New Haven’s Fair Haven neighborhood.
During the investigation, law enforcement seized approximately 500 grams of raw heroin, three handguns and five vehicles. In addition, bank accounts containing more than $300,000 have been frozen.
Seventeen individuals were charged as a result of this investigation. All 17 have pleaded guilty.
VASQUEZ has been detained since his arrest on July 15, 2015. On September 20, 2016, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, 100 grams or more of heroin.
The DEA New Haven Task Force includes participants from the New Haven, Hamden, West Haven, North Haven, East Haven, Branford, Ansonia, Meriden and Derby Police Departments, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys H. Gordon Hall and Patrick Caruso.
United States Attorney Joe Kelly announced that on June 5, 2019, Jose Donato, 25, of Lexington, Nebraska was sentenced to 87 months in prison for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of pure methamphetamine. Following the prison term, Donato will serve three years on supervised release. The Honorable John M. Gerrard presided over this case.
Between July 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018, with the assistance of a confidential informant, law enforcement officers completed a series of nine controlled purchases of methamphetamine from Donato and his co-defendants, Rodrigo Bolanos and Arturo Garcia.
This case was investigated by Central Nebraska Drug and Safe Streets Task Force, which his composed of members from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Nebraska State Patrol, the Grand Island Police Department, the Hall County Sheriff’s Department, the Adams County Sheriff’s Department, the Hastings Police Department, and the Kearney Police Department.
Today, the Central Nebraska Drug and Safe Streets Task Force conducted a multiple agency operation in the Central Nebraska region that led to the federal arrests of 12 individuals for charges including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, distribution of methamphetamine, and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. One defendant was also arrested on a state charge of distribution of cocaine. The operation included the execution of 4 federal search warrants and 1 state search warrant in Grand Island, which resulted in the recovery of a significant amount of U.S. Currency, over 2 pounds of methamphetamine, and a yet to be determined amount of cocaine. Court appearances for defendants arrested on federal charges will occur in Lincoln.
The Central Nebraska Drug and Safe Streets Task Force consists of the following agencies: The Grand Island Police Department, Nebraska State Patrol, Hall County Sheriff’s Office, Kearney Police Department, Buffalo County Sheriff’s Office, Hastings Police Department, Adams County Sheriff’s Office, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Hall County Attorney’s Office, and the United States Attorney’s Office.
Other law enforcement agencies involved in the operation include the Aurora Police Department and the Merrick County Sheriff’s Office.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
United States Attorney Joe Kelly announced that Aaron O. Leyva was arrested Saturday on a federal warrant. Today, the indictment against Leyva has been unsealed. Leyva is charged with twice distributing five grams or more of actual methamphetamine in March of 2018. Last week, on September 20, 2018, several law enforcement agencies arrested a dozen people in the Grand Island area on drug trafficking charges. Leyva was part of the same investigation, but he was not located until this weekend. Leyva will have his initial appearance in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart in Lincoln this week.
This case was investigated by the Central Nebraska Drug and Safe Streets Task Force, which consists of the following agencies: The Grand Island Police Department, Nebraska State Patrol, Hall County Sheriff’s Office, Kearney Police Department, Buffalo County Sheriff’s Office, Hastings Police Department, Adams County Sheriff’s Office, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Hall County Attorney’s Office, and the United States Attorney’s Office.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
United States Attorney Joe Kelly announced that Gary Fellows, 45, was sentenced today in federal court in Omaha for his role in the armed robbery of a United States Postal Service tractor-trailer operator. In April, Fellows entered pleas of guilty to charges of Hobbs Act Robbery and Use of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence. Today the Honorable Laurie Smith Camp sentenced Fellows to 300 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal prison system. After serving his sentence, Fellows will began a five-year term of supervised release.
At 9:30 p.m. on December 14, 2018, while at the United States Post Office Distribution Center in Grand Island, Nebraska, a postal employee was approached by a masked man brandishing a handgun. The masked man forced the victim into the passenger seat of the victim’s tractor-trailer at gunpoint, covered the victim’s head, and bound his hands. Fellows then drove the tractor-trailer to a rest area off Interstate 80 where the men further restrained the victim and removed remittance bags from the trailer. They entered a pick-up truck and fled the scene. The loss to the United States Post Office from the robbery was $68,507.04. At the time of the robbery, Fellows was employed as a tractor-trailer operator for the United States Postal Service out of Omaha, Nebraska. Fellows has a prior federal court conviction for bank robbery.
“The sentencing today serves as yet another example of the unending dedication of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to protect the employees of the United States Postal Service. When someone violently kidnaps and robs one of our employees, we stop at nothing to identify those responsible,” said Bill Hedrick, Inspector in Charge of the Denver Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service, which covers Nebraska. “We are proud of the work done by the Postal Inspectors and our law enforcement partners, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, Nebraska State Patrol, Grand Island Police Department, Hall County Sheriff’s Department and the United States Attorney’s Office, to bring these perpetrators to justice.”
Co-defendants, Sidney Britt and Joshua Britt, are scheduled to be sentenced on November 18, 2019, for their roles in the robbery.
This case was investigated by Bryce Husak of the Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, the Nebraska State Patrol, the Hall County Sheriff’s Office, and the Grand Island Police Department.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
CONCORD – William Hallinan, 36, of Rochester, was sentenced today to 72 months in federal prison for possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, and carrying a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, United States Attorney Jane E. Young announced.
According to court documents and statements made in court, on February 2, 2020, a traffic stop of the vehicle Mr. Hallinan was driving and a subsequent search of his vehicle conducted by Somersworth Police yielded a baggie of methamphetamine, a loaded 9 mm handgun, a digital scale, and multiple unused baggies. Mr. Hallinan was also carrying roughly $900 in cash in his pocket. In a post-arrest interview, Mr. Hallinan admitted to selling drugs, and explained he carried the firearm to protect his money. On September 14, 2020, Strafford County Sheriff’s deputies conducted another motor vehicle stop of Mr. Hallinan, and during a pat check found a sheathed knife on his person, a switch blade, $1,131 in cash, 5.4 grams of crack cocaine, and a handgun. A subsequent search of his vehicle resulted in seizure of roughly 100 grams of fentanyl, 27.5 grams of methamphetamine, 24.5 grams of cocaine, a .45 caliber handgun, and $12,371 in cash. A search of Mr. Hallinan’s telephone revealed exchanges showing he conspired with his source of supply to purchase narcotics for distribution. Texts in his phone confirmed he was dealing drugs from February to September of 2020.
“Armed drug traffickers are a threat to the safety of our communities,” said U.S. Attorney Young. “Bringing these criminals to justice is a priority for the United States Attorney’s Office, so that we curb the violence and societal harm that stems from distribution of narcotics by armed criminals like the defendant.”
“Guns and drugs take far too many lives in our communities, and William Hallinan was contributing to the devastating impact of both here in New Hampshire,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division. “With today’s sentence, this armed drug trafficker will spend a significant time behind bars, while the FBI continues to work with our law enforcement partners to remove dangerous criminals from the streets.”
This matter was investigated by the Rochester Police Department with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Gingrande.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Case Name: United States of America v. Johnson Shane et al
Press Releases:
MADISON, WIS. -- A federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting in Madison, returned the following indictments today. You are advised that a charge is merely an accusation and that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted, the sentencing of a defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Barron County Woman Charged with Wire Fraud & Tax Crimes
Deborah R. Marcellus, 63, Turtle Lake, Wis., is charged with seven counts of wire fraud and four counts of filing a false income tax return. The indictment alleges that she filed false income tax returns for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, in which she under-reported her adjusted gross income.
The indictment alleges that from January 2011 to April 2017, Marcellus devised a scheme to defraud St. Joseph’s Catholic Congregation, a church and parish located in Rice Lake, Wis. During this time period, Marcellus served as the Director of Development for St. Joseph’s, and was responsible for handling all financial and accounting matters for the church.
The indictment alleges that Marcellus misappropriated approximately $818,604 from St. Joseph’s bank accounts and used the funds for her personal benefit, including gambling. The indictment also alleges that Marcellus generated checks to herself from checking accounts maintained by St. Joseph’s, and concealed her conduct by changing the name of the payee for the checks to a legitimate vendor of the church in the financial records maintained by the church. In addition, the indictment alleges that Marcellus forged the signature of an authorized signatory for the St. Joseph’s checking accounts on the fraudulently obtained checks.
If convicted, Marcellus faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each of the wire fraud charges, and five years on each of the tax charges. The charges against Marcellus are the result of an investigation by IRS Criminal Investigation. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
La Crosse Man Charged with Wildlife Crimes
Markos Diderrich, 28, La Crosse, Wis., is charged with six counts of transporting wildlife in interstate commerce, knowing that the wildlife was taken in violation of state laws. The indictment alleges the following:
1. On June 1, 2016, Diderrich engaged in the sale of and interstate transportation of wildlife with a market value in excess of $350, that is, Blanding's turtles taken in violation of Minnesota law;
2. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to California;
3. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Pennsylvania;
4. On January 27, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to New York;
5. On April 5, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia; and
6. On April 13, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia. If convicted, Diderrich faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison on count 1, and one year in federal prison on each of the remaining counts. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Graber.
Barron Man Charged with Methamphetamine Crimes Daniel Swessel, 33, Barron, Wis., is charged with two counts of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed methamphetamine on September 1 and October 11, 2017, and further alleges that on October 11, he possessed 50 grams or more of the drug. If convicted, Swessel faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on count 1, and a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of 40 years on count 2. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the Barron County Sheriff’s Office. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
Chippewa Falls Man Charged with Drug Crime Shane Johnson, 40, Chippewa Falls, Wis., is charged with possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed the methamphetamine on November 23, 2017. If convicted, Johnson faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum penalty of 40 years in federal prison. The charge against him is the result of an investigation by the Chippewa Falls Police Department, Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, Wisconsin State Patrol, Village of Lake Hallie Police Department, West Central Drug Task Force, and U.S. Postal Service. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Altman.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Case Name: United States of America v. Marcellus Deborah
Press Releases:
MADISON, WIS. -- A federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting in Madison, returned the following indictments today. You are advised that a charge is merely an accusation and that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted, the sentencing of a defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Barron County Woman Charged with Wire Fraud & Tax Crimes
Deborah R. Marcellus, 63, Turtle Lake, Wis., is charged with seven counts of wire fraud and four counts of filing a false income tax return. The indictment alleges that she filed false income tax returns for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, in which she under-reported her adjusted gross income.
The indictment alleges that from January 2011 to April 2017, Marcellus devised a scheme to defraud St. Joseph’s Catholic Congregation, a church and parish located in Rice Lake, Wis. During this time period, Marcellus served as the Director of Development for St. Joseph’s, and was responsible for handling all financial and accounting matters for the church.
The indictment alleges that Marcellus misappropriated approximately $818,604 from St. Joseph’s bank accounts and used the funds for her personal benefit, including gambling. The indictment also alleges that Marcellus generated checks to herself from checking accounts maintained by St. Joseph’s, and concealed her conduct by changing the name of the payee for the checks to a legitimate vendor of the church in the financial records maintained by the church. In addition, the indictment alleges that Marcellus forged the signature of an authorized signatory for the St. Joseph’s checking accounts on the fraudulently obtained checks.
If convicted, Marcellus faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each of the wire fraud charges, and five years on each of the tax charges. The charges against Marcellus are the result of an investigation by IRS Criminal Investigation. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
La Crosse Man Charged with Wildlife Crimes
Markos Diderrich, 28, La Crosse, Wis., is charged with six counts of transporting wildlife in interstate commerce, knowing that the wildlife was taken in violation of state laws. The indictment alleges the following:
1. On June 1, 2016, Diderrich engaged in the sale of and interstate transportation of wildlife with a market value in excess of $350, that is, Blanding's turtles taken in violation of Minnesota law;
2. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to California;
3. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Pennsylvania;
4. On January 27, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to New York;
5. On April 5, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia; and
6. On April 13, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia. If convicted, Diderrich faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison on count 1, and one year in federal prison on each of the remaining counts. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Graber.
Barron Man Charged with Methamphetamine Crimes Daniel Swessel, 33, Barron, Wis., is charged with two counts of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed methamphetamine on September 1 and October 11, 2017, and further alleges that on October 11, he possessed 50 grams or more of the drug. If convicted, Swessel faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on count 1, and a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of 40 years on count 2. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the Barron County Sheriff’s Office. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
Chippewa Falls Man Charged with Drug Crime Shane Johnson, 40, Chippewa Falls, Wis., is charged with possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed the methamphetamine on November 23, 2017. If convicted, Johnson faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum penalty of 40 years in federal prison. The charge against him is the result of an investigation by the Chippewa Falls Police Department, Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, Wisconsin State Patrol, Village of Lake Hallie Police Department, West Central Drug Task Force, and U.S. Postal Service. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Altman.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Case Name: United States of America v. Swessel Daniel
Press Releases:
MADISON, WIS. -- A federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting in Madison, returned the following indictments today. You are advised that a charge is merely an accusation and that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted, the sentencing of a defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Barron County Woman Charged with Wire Fraud & Tax Crimes
Deborah R. Marcellus, 63, Turtle Lake, Wis., is charged with seven counts of wire fraud and four counts of filing a false income tax return. The indictment alleges that she filed false income tax returns for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, in which she under-reported her adjusted gross income.
The indictment alleges that from January 2011 to April 2017, Marcellus devised a scheme to defraud St. Joseph’s Catholic Congregation, a church and parish located in Rice Lake, Wis. During this time period, Marcellus served as the Director of Development for St. Joseph’s, and was responsible for handling all financial and accounting matters for the church.
The indictment alleges that Marcellus misappropriated approximately $818,604 from St. Joseph’s bank accounts and used the funds for her personal benefit, including gambling. The indictment also alleges that Marcellus generated checks to herself from checking accounts maintained by St. Joseph’s, and concealed her conduct by changing the name of the payee for the checks to a legitimate vendor of the church in the financial records maintained by the church. In addition, the indictment alleges that Marcellus forged the signature of an authorized signatory for the St. Joseph’s checking accounts on the fraudulently obtained checks.
If convicted, Marcellus faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each of the wire fraud charges, and five years on each of the tax charges. The charges against Marcellus are the result of an investigation by IRS Criminal Investigation. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
La Crosse Man Charged with Wildlife Crimes
Markos Diderrich, 28, La Crosse, Wis., is charged with six counts of transporting wildlife in interstate commerce, knowing that the wildlife was taken in violation of state laws. The indictment alleges the following:
1. On June 1, 2016, Diderrich engaged in the sale of and interstate transportation of wildlife with a market value in excess of $350, that is, Blanding's turtles taken in violation of Minnesota law;
2. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to California;
3. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Pennsylvania;
4. On January 27, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to New York;
5. On April 5, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia; and
6. On April 13, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia. If convicted, Diderrich faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison on count 1, and one year in federal prison on each of the remaining counts. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Graber.
Barron Man Charged with Methamphetamine Crimes Daniel Swessel, 33, Barron, Wis., is charged with two counts of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed methamphetamine on September 1 and October 11, 2017, and further alleges that on October 11, he possessed 50 grams or more of the drug. If convicted, Swessel faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on count 1, and a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of 40 years on count 2. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the Barron County Sheriff’s Office. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
Chippewa Falls Man Charged with Drug Crime Shane Johnson, 40, Chippewa Falls, Wis., is charged with possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed the methamphetamine on November 23, 2017. If convicted, Johnson faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum penalty of 40 years in federal prison. The charge against him is the result of an investigation by the Chippewa Falls Police Department, Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, Wisconsin State Patrol, Village of Lake Hallie Police Department, West Central Drug Task Force, and U.S. Postal Service. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Altman.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Case Name: United States of America v. Diderrich Markos
Press Releases:
MADISON, WIS. -- A federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting in Madison, returned the following indictments today. You are advised that a charge is merely an accusation and that a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted, the sentencing of a defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Barron County Woman Charged with Wire Fraud & Tax Crimes
Deborah R. Marcellus, 63, Turtle Lake, Wis., is charged with seven counts of wire fraud and four counts of filing a false income tax return. The indictment alleges that she filed false income tax returns for 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, in which she under-reported her adjusted gross income.
The indictment alleges that from January 2011 to April 2017, Marcellus devised a scheme to defraud St. Joseph’s Catholic Congregation, a church and parish located in Rice Lake, Wis. During this time period, Marcellus served as the Director of Development for St. Joseph’s, and was responsible for handling all financial and accounting matters for the church.
The indictment alleges that Marcellus misappropriated approximately $818,604 from St. Joseph’s bank accounts and used the funds for her personal benefit, including gambling. The indictment also alleges that Marcellus generated checks to herself from checking accounts maintained by St. Joseph’s, and concealed her conduct by changing the name of the payee for the checks to a legitimate vendor of the church in the financial records maintained by the church. In addition, the indictment alleges that Marcellus forged the signature of an authorized signatory for the St. Joseph’s checking accounts on the fraudulently obtained checks.
If convicted, Marcellus faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each of the wire fraud charges, and five years on each of the tax charges. The charges against Marcellus are the result of an investigation by IRS Criminal Investigation. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
La Crosse Man Charged with Wildlife Crimes
Markos Diderrich, 28, La Crosse, Wis., is charged with six counts of transporting wildlife in interstate commerce, knowing that the wildlife was taken in violation of state laws. The indictment alleges the following:
1. On June 1, 2016, Diderrich engaged in the sale of and interstate transportation of wildlife with a market value in excess of $350, that is, Blanding's turtles taken in violation of Minnesota law;
2. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to California;
3. On January 26, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Pennsylvania;
4. On January 27, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to New York;
5. On April 5, 2016, he transported Eastern tiger salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia; and
6. On April 13, 2016, he transported blue-spotted salamanders taken in violation of Wisconsin law to Virginia. If convicted, Diderrich faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison on count 1, and one year in federal prison on each of the remaining counts. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Graber.
Barron Man Charged with Methamphetamine Crimes Daniel Swessel, 33, Barron, Wis., is charged with two counts of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed methamphetamine on September 1 and October 11, 2017, and further alleges that on October 11, he possessed 50 grams or more of the drug. If convicted, Swessel faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on count 1, and a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of 40 years on count 2. The charges against him are the result of an investigation by the Barron County Sheriff’s Office. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Wegner.
Chippewa Falls Man Charged with Drug Crime Shane Johnson, 40, Chippewa Falls, Wis., is charged with possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The indictment alleges that he possessed the methamphetamine on November 23, 2017. If convicted, Johnson faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years and a maximum penalty of 40 years in federal prison. The charge against him is the result of an investigation by the Chippewa Falls Police Department, Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, Wisconsin State Patrol, Village of Lake Hallie Police Department, West Central Drug Task Force, and U.S. Postal Service. The prosecution of this case is being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Altman.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
MADISON, WIS. -- Scott C. Blader, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that Shane Johnson, 40, of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge William Conley to 20 years in federal prison for possessing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. Based on Johnson’s criminal history, this was the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for this offense. This prison term will be followed by 10 years of supervised release. Johnson pleaded guilty to this charge on March 6, 2018.
On November 23, 2017, Chippewa Falls police officers executed a warrant at Johnson’s residence where they found approximately 238 grams of methamphetamine, 432 grams of marijuana, 23.1 grams of heroin, 21.1 grams of cocaine, 284 vials of what officers suspected to be steroids, and multiple bags of unknown powders. Agents also found two pistols and approximately $5,135. The methamphetamine was analyzed and found to be approximately 98% pure. The heroin was analyzed and found to also contain fentanyl.
Johnson’s criminal history involving drugs and violence began when he was 18 years old. He has two prior felony drug offenses, which increased the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment he faced from 10 to 20 years. His other prior convictions include second-degree reckless injury, criminal trespass, obstructing an officer, OWI 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, theft, possession of marijuana, bail jumping, escape, and carrying a concealed weapon.
“Methamphetamine and heroin are dangerous drugs that destroy countless lives,” said U.S. Attorney Blader. “Dealers who repeatedly exploit the addictions caused by these substances for profit will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by my office.”
The charge against Johnson was the result of an investigation conducted by the Chippewa Falls Police Department, Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, Wisconsin State Patrol, Village of Lake Hallie Police Department, West Central Drug Task Force, and the U.S. Postal Service. The prosecution of the case has been handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Altman.
FRANKFORT, Ky. – A Lexington, Ky., woman, Abigail Hall, 51, was sentenced on Monday to 60 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, for tampering with a consumer product. According to her plea agreement, between January 2023 and August 2023, Hall worked as a contract registered nurse at several facilities in Kentucky, including a health care facility in Lawrenceburg, Ky., that focused on care for the elderly and infirm. Hall admitted that on August 27, 2023, she took morphine that had been prescribed for three patients that she was treating at the healthcare facility, all of whom had significant disease and pain concerns. Hall replaced the stolen morphine with water and blue food coloring, to resemble the real medication. Ultimately, Hall took at least seven syringes of stolen morphine and administered the tampered morphine to at least one of the patients. Under federal law, Hall must serve 85 percent of her prison sentence. Upon her release from prison, she will be under the supervision of the U.S. Probation Office for three years. Paul McCaffrey, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and George A. Scavdis, Special Agent in Charge, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, Metro Washington Field Office, jointly announced the sentence.The investigation was conducted by FDA-OCI. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kate Smith is prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.– END –
LUBBOCK — Two defendants were sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings for their role in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy, announced U.S. Attorney John Parker of the Northern District of Texas.
Saul Blanco-Gallegos, 37, of Grand Prairie, and Juan Rodriguez Galindo, aka “Johnny,” 43, of Amarillo, both pleaded guilty to their roles in the conspiracy and were sentenced to 108 months and 130 months in federal prison, respectively.
Last week, Judge Cummings sentenced the following defendants, who all pleaded guilty in April 2017 to their roles in the conspiracy, to the following:
Isaias Perez-Benito, 32, of Amarillo, 210 months
Corina Villalpando, 51, of Plainview, 188 months
Dusty Lee Stowers, 30, of Friona, 108
Mona Lesa Thomas, aka “Lisa,” 52, of Lubbock, 46 months
According to plea documents filed in the case, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration and Texas Department of Public Safety conducted an investigation into a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy involving suspects in Amarillo, Plainview, Lubbock, and several other cities in the Texas Panhandle.
Through the use of various investigative techniques – including multiple undercover purchases and residential search warrants – agents were ultimately able to seize a total of approximately 10 pounds of methamphetamine, nine firearms, and nearly $20,000 in cash.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, Texas Department of Public Safety, Friona Police Department, and Plainview Police Department investigated the case.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Long prosecuted.
# # #
LUBBOCK — Six defendants have been charged in a federal indictment, unsealed this week, with felony offenses stemming from their role in a methamphetamine distribution conspiracy, announced U.S. Attorney John Parker of the Northern District of Texas.
Five defendants have made their initial appearance in federal court in Lubbock before U.S. Magistrate D. Gordon Bryant, Jr. and will remain in custody pending trial. One defendant remains a fugitive.
The nine-count indictment charges each of the following defendants with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine:
Isaias Perez-Benito, 31, of Amarillo
Juan Rodriguez Galindo, aka “Johnny,” 42, of Amarillo
Corina Villalpando, 50, of Plainview
Dusty Lee Stowers, 29, of Friona
Mona Lesa Thomas, aka “Lisa,” 52, of Lubbock
In addition, each defendant is charged with additional substantive counts of distribution of methamphetamine. Perez-Benito was an illegal alien and unlawfully in the United States at the time of the offenses charged and is charged with an additional count of illegal alien in possession of firearms.
A federal indictment is an accusation by a grand jury. A defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. If convicted, however, the conspiracy count carries statutory penalties ranging from 5 years to life in federal prison and a $5 million to $10 million fine. The other substantive drug offenses carry similar penalties. If convicted of the firearm charge, Perez-Benito also faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, Texas Department of Public Safety, Friona Police Department, and Plainview Police Department are in charge of the investigation.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Long is in charge of the prosecution.
# # #
DALLAS, Texas — Jose Luis Martinez-Martinez, 41, of Desoto, Texas, made his initial appearance last week before U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney on a complaint, unsealed today, charging possession with intent to distribute, announced U.S. Attorney John Parker of the Northern District of Texas.
Judge Stickney ordered that Martinez remain in federal custody. A preliminary hearing will be set at a later date.
According to the affidavit filed with the criminal complaint, the investigation began when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) received information that Martinez-Martinez was involved in the distribution of kilogram quantities of heroin in the Dallas metroplex. An undercover officer contacted Martinez-Martinez by cellular phone and placed an order for three kilograms of heroin. Martinez-Martinez agreed to supply the officer with the three kilograms of heroin and they agreed to meet at Flying J Truck stop located at 7425 Bonnie View Road, Dallas, Texas. Dallas County Sherriff’s officers performed a traffic stop on Martinez-Martinez as he arrived at the Flying J Truck stop. During the traffic stop officers observed a small gift style bag with an open top sitting in the front right passenger seat. Also observed in plain view was a black tar like substance inside the bag believed to be heroin. Martinez-Martinez was then placed under arrest. During an interview, Martinez-Martinez stated that he had an additional 2.5 kilograms of heroin concealed at his residence located at Desoto, Texas. During a search of the residence investigators recovered an additional 3,042.3 grams of heroin.
A federal criminal complaint is a written statement of the essential facts of the offense charged, and must be made under oath before a magistrate judge. A defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The U.S. Attorney’s office has 30 days to present the matter to a grand jury for indictment. The penalty for the charged offense is not less than 10 years or up to life in federal prison and a $10 million fine.
The matter is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Assistant U.S. Attorney Rachael Jones is in charge of the prosecution.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
AUGUSTA, GA: The owner of a Thomson, Ga., medical equipment company was sentenced to more than 10 years in federal prison Tuesday, July 30, for a wide-ranging Medicare fraud scheme.
Detra Wiley Pate, owner and CEO of Southern Respiratory LLC, of Thomson, Ga., was sentenced by U.S. District Court Chief Judge J. Randall Hall to 121 months in federal prison for multiple counts of health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud and aggravated identity theft, said Bobby L. Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia. She also was ordered to pay $950,000 in restitution, and must serve three years of supervised release after completion of her sentence. There is no parole in the federal system.
“Detra Wiley Pate had every opportunity to operate a successful, legitimate business serving the needs of the elderly and vulnerable in her community,” said U.S. Attorney Christine. “Instead, she got greedy and charged Medicare for expensive equipment patients neither needed nor received, using prescriptions doctors had not written. As an ironic result, she’ll grow old in prison while reflecting on her fraud.”
According to the information presented in court documents and testimony, from 2014-2016 Pate submitted thousands of false claims, fabricated patient files, and falsified prescriptions from doctors for items such as heavy-duty wheelchairs while providing much cheaper standard wheelchairs to patients – and pocketing the substantial difference in cost. Pate used the money she stole from Medicare through this fraud to pay for such things as jewelry, including a 1.5 carat diamond and a Rolex watch.
“The FBI and our federal law enforcement partners are determined to prosecute anyone who chooses to profit personally at the expense of those who count on federal healthcare programs for their deserved benefit and the taxpayers of this country,” said Chris Hacker, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “This sentencing is an example of that determination and our commitment to protect our citizens and uphold the Constitution.”
“Fraud schemes such as these divert taxpayer funds from vital federal healthcare programs to fraudsters – such as Detra Wiley Pate – who seek personal gain,” said Special Agent in Charge Derrick L. Jackson of the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Our agents, working closely with our law enforcement partners, will continue to clamp down on such scams.”
The case was investigated by the FBI and by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patricia Rhodes and Thomas Clarkson led the prosecution for the United States with assistance from Litigation Technologist Dean Athanasopoulos.
AUGUSTA, Ga: A federal jury on Tuesday, Dec. 11, found the owner of a Thomson, Ga., medical equipment company guilty of multiple counts of Medicare fraud and identity theft in a scheme that charged the government insurance program for items that were never provided to patients and never ordered by a physician.
Detra Wiley Pate, owner and CEO of Southern Respiratory LLC, of Thomson, Ga., was found guilty on 33 counts, including health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud and aggravated identity theft for crimes dating back to 2014.
The jury deliberated less than five hours. A sentencing date before Chief Judge J. Randal Hall has not yet been set. Pate faces a sentence of up to 10 years for each count of the indictment, plus an additional sentence of at least two years on the eight charges of aggravated identity theft.
According to the indictment and evidence presented at trial, from 2014 through 2016, as part of the scheme, Pate submitted thousands of false claims, fabricated patient files, and falsified prescriptions from doctors for items such as heavy-duty wheelchairs while providing much cheaper standard wheelchairs to patients – and pocketing the substantial difference in cost. The evidence further showed that Pate used the money she stole from Medicare through this fraud to pay for jewelry, including a 1.5 carat diamond and a Rolex watch.
“Health care fraud, particularly that which targets the insurance system for elderly and vulnerable patients, is despicable,” said Southern District of Georgia U.S. Attorney Bobby L. Christine. “Clearly, the jury saw the depth to which such fraud can reach in finding overwhelming evidence of guilt in this case.”
“Those who choose to defraud Medicare are stealing from federal taxpayers and those who count on Medicare for healthcare needs,” said Chris Hacker, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “This conviction sends a strong message that the FBI and its federal law enforcement partners are committed to investigating and prosecuting those who, for personal profit, cheat citizens out of the services they deserve.”
“Criminals like Pate devise schemes they think will lead to boundless riches while sending the bills to taxpayers,” said Derrick L. Jackson, Special Agent in Charge for the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Instead they face prison time and banishment from government health programs.”
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patricia Rhodes and Thomas Clarkson led the prosecution for the United States.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
STATESBORO, GA: A Bulloch County, Ga., man has been sentenced to federal prison for income tax evasion.
Samir Patel, 56, of Statesboro, Ga., was sentenced today (Dec. 19) to two years in prison after previously pleading guilty to tax evasion, said Jill E. Steinberg, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia. U.S. District Court Chief Judge J. Randal Hall also ordered Patel to pay approximately $550,000 in restitution to the United States, a fine of $95,000, and ordered him to serve three years of supervised release upon completion of his prison term.
There is no parole in the federal system.
“Much of our nation’s operating revenues are dependent on the lawful participation of citizens in the income tax system, and those who evade their responsibilities place a greater burden on everyone else,” said U.S. Attorney Steinberg. “This sentence demonstrates the substantial consequences of attempting to cheat the system.”
As described in court documents and testimony, Patel was a tax return preparer at a national return preparation business. In 2015, Patel purchased a franchise of the business in Claxton, Ga. As the owner, he hired, trained, and supervised tax preparers, and continued to prepare returns for customers. Patel, however, willfully filed false income tax returns that omitted more than $1.28 million in income – including almost $1.18 million from S&W Amusements, a company that placed coin operated amusement machines in convenience stores and gas stations – and evaded proper assessment of his personal taxes for years 2015, 2016, and 2017.
As part of his sentence, Patel is prohibited from preparing tax returns for others or for entities in which he has no interest during his term of supervised release.
IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the case, which was prosecuted for the United States by Trial Attorneys Matthew C. Hicks and Richard J. Hagerman of the Department of Justice Tax Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney John P. Harper III of the Southern District of Georgia.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year