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
PHOENIX, Ariz. – Last week, Kevin Dean McCoy, 28, of Tucson, Ariz., was sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge James A. Teilborg to 15 years in prison. Silvester Ruelas, 50, of Peoria, Ariz., was previously sentenced to 20 years in prison. Two other co-defendants, Amber Worrell and Peggy Gomez, were sentenced to 10 years in prison and 5 years in prison, respectively. All four defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and launder proceeds from drug distribution.
Between 2015 and 2017, the defendants used the vendor name “Iceman21” to advertise and sell heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine on various dark web marketplaces, including AlphaBay, Hansa, and Dream Market. The investigation revealed that the defendants were using the United States Postal Service to ship drugs from the Phoenix metropolitan area to locations throughout the United States. During the investigation, the United States Postal Inspection Service seized parcels containing illegal drugs that were en route to Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas. To conceal and launder proceeds they generated through drug distribution, the defendants used encrypted technology, sold cryptocurrency through peer-to-peer exchangers, and created bank accounts for non-existent businesses. During the investigation, law enforcement officials seized a Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl XL ring, numerous gold, silver, and platinum bars, and an extensive collection of firearms, including a Texas Weapons System AK-47, a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun, and a .50 caliber Bohica sniper rifle.
“Our office is committed to working closely with our agency partners to aggressively investigate and prosecute drug traffickers,” said U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey. “Hiding behind computer keyboards and using our mail system to move their drugs will not shield them from lengthy prison sentences.”
“Drug traffickers using the dark web feel a sense of security with the anonymity to sell their poisons throughout the world,” said Doug Coleman, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Arizona. “This investigation clearly demonstrates they aren’t safe, they aren’t anonymous, and they can’t evade justice. DEA and our partners will relentlessly pursue criminals who prey on our citizens, no matter where they are and no matter what means they use to distribute their illicit and deadly products.”
“Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) has continued to demonstrate a commitment to combating illicit activities spread by online dark web markets,” said Scott Brown, HSI Special Agent in Charge for the Phoenix office. “By joining forces with our law enforcement partners, we are utilizing all tools and authorities to investigate and dismantle narcotics trafficking and financial crimes that plague the internet. As this case demonstrates, there is no safe dark web marketplace beyond our investigative reach.”
“This drug trafficking organization used sophisticated means to sell and distribute dangerous drugs throughout the country. No matter the methods used by criminals, IRS-CI Special Agents have the skills needed to investigate high tech drug and money laundering schemes,” said Special Agent in Charge Ismael Nevarez, Jr., of the Phoenix Field Office of IRS - Criminal Investigations.
“This investigation once again showcases the excellent collaboration between the United States Postal Inspection Service and other law enforcement agencies. Through these partnerships, we continue working to keep our communities safe from the spread of illegal narcotics purchased through the dark web. We continue to challenge the anonymous nature of the dark web, proving time and again you are never truly anonymous,” stated Acting Inspector in Charge Jessica Wagner of the United States Postal Inspection Service.
The investigation was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Homeland Security Investigations, Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigations, and the United States Postal Inspection Service, with assistance from the Scottsdale, Mesa, and Peoria Police Departments, as part of an operation supported by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The OCDETF program is a federal multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task force that provides supplemental federal funding to federal and state agencies involved in the identification, investigation, and prosecution of major drug trafficking organizations. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and money laundering organizations, and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
The case was prosecuted by Matthew Binford and Carolina Escalante, Assistant United States Attorneys, District of Arizona, Phoenix.
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
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department announced today a settlement agreement with the Pasco County School District in Florida to resolve the department’s investigation into alleged discrimination against students with disabilities in school discipline, threat assessment practices and referrals of students to law enforcement. The department conducted its investigation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The department’s investigation found that the district routinely suspended students or called police for disability-related behavior that could have been addressed through proper support and de-escalation. The investigation also found problems with how the district conducted threat assessments (a process to identify, evaluate and respond to potential school security concerns). When these assessments involved students with disabilities, the district systematically failed to consider the relationship between a student’s disability and their behavior, and whether appropriate support for the student would address the behavior that prompted the assessment. Instead, the district often unnecessarily referred students to law enforcement to be arrested or to start the process for an involuntary admission into a mental health facility under Florida’s Baker Act.
The agreement requires the district to end discriminatory practices under which students lost hours of classroom time, were treated unfairly in the threat assessment process, and even faced the prospect of being arrested or sent to a mental health facility against their will. The department will monitor the district’s implementation of the agreement and will also continue to monitor and enforce an ongoing desegregation order that covers the district.
“As we mark the 70th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, we remain committed to disrupting the school to prison pipeline and ensuring that the doors of academic opportunity are open to all,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Too often schools rely on suspensions and law enforcement to address disability-related behaviors of students, without considering what they can do to help those students stay in and succeed at school. Equal participation in schools for students with disabilities means providing those students with the services and interventions they need to succeed. This agreement is part of our ongoing efforts across the country to combat practices that push students out of the classroom.”
“Each and every child deserves an equal opportunity to learn and thrive,” said U.S. Attorney Roger Handberg for the Middle District of Florida. “Our office, in partnership with the department’s Civil Rights Division, will vigorously investigate and enforce the protections of the ADA to end discrimination on the basis of disability in all settings, including in our public schools. I am heartened by the district’s commitment to this significant agreement, which will undoubtedly improve the education and everyday lives of students with disabilities in our community.”
The district cooperated with the department throughout the investigation and has committed to improving its services for students with disabilities. Among other actions, under the agreement, the district will:
Ensure that district personnel accurately assess disability-related behaviors, identify appropriate interventions for those behaviors and monitor the implementation of those interventions;
Hire a consultant with expertise in behavior interventions who will assist in updating its policies and practices;
Update its student code of conduct, threat assessment process and process for calling law enforcement to ensure that the district is adequately considering disability-related behaviors and modifying its policies and procedures to avoid discrimination based on disability;
Develop appropriate trainings to help schools implement the agreement and respond appropriately to student behavior and
Improve data collection and analysis systems and regularly evaluate data to ensure students with disabilities are not excluded from school for disability-related behaviors through the district’s discipline, threat assessment and law enforcement referral practices.
The enforcement of Title II of the ADA is a top priority of the Civil Rights Division. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt, and additional information about the work of the Educational Opportunities Section is available at www.justice.gov/crt/educational-opportunities-section. Members of the public may report possible civil rights violations at www.civilrights.justice.gov/report/.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida worked in collaboration with the Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section to investigate this case. Information about the Civil Rights Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida and a complaint form for the unit can be found at www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/civil-rights.
View the department’s letter to the district here.
Tacoma – A 48-year-old Longview, Washington, man was arrested this morning on a criminal complaint charging seven counts of making interstate threats, announced U.S. Attorney Nick Brown. Mark Leonetti has allegedly repeatedly called U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives and left voicemails threatening bodily harm. Leonetti will appear today in U.S. District Court in Tacoma.
“Making horrific and graphic threats to harm is always unacceptable, and we must always take threats of political violence seriously. In this instance, Mr. Leonetti refused to stop his conduct despite contact with law enforcement and mental health personnel,” said U.S. Attorney Brown. “We acted now because it has become clear it is the only way to safeguard the community and those serving it.”
According to the criminal complaint, in 2021, Leonetti allegedly left more than 400 voicemails for members of Congress, several of which used slurs and were threatening. This pattern of allegedly leaving voicemails for federal elected officials continued despite Leonetti being visited and warned several times by law enforcement and mental health professionals. In early September 2022, he left threatening voicemails in the voicemail box of a congresswoman. Emergency mental health professionals again contacted Leonetti after those calls. In late September and October 2022, Leonetti left additional threatening voicemails for a different senator and a congressman. The most recent voicemails were left on December 5, 2022 and contained bizarre and threatening statements about “murder” and “killing” individuals.
Making interstate threats is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.
The charges contained in the complaint are only allegations. A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The case is being investigated by the FBI with assistance from the U.S. Capitol Police and the Longview Police Department.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Will Dreher.
NEW BERN – United States Attorney Robert J. Higdon, Jr. announced that over the course of the last week in federal court, before Chief United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, multiple defendants have been sentenced in a large-scale heroin and marijuana trafficking organization.
The investigation was part of OCDETF Operation 190, which was named in memory of New Bern Police Department Officer Alexander Thalmann. Officer Thalmann was shot and killed in the line of duty in March of 2014 by associates of the defendants in this case. An Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) is a joint federal, state, and local cooperative approach to combat drug trafficking and is the nation’s primary tool for disrupting and dismantling major drug trafficking organizations, targeting national and regional level drug trafficking organizations, and coordinating the necessary law enforcement entities and resources to disrupt or dismantle the targeted criminal organization and seize their assets.
The defendants’ convictions and sentencings were the culmination of a multi-year investigation into a heroin trafficking ring operating in and around New Bern, North Carolina, and led primarily by two men: DAMIEN LAMONTE BROWN and CALVIN MARK WILSON. Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and members of the New Bern Police Department learned that BROWN, WILSON, and others had been involved in ordering heroin from New York City and arranging it to be brought down in multi-kilogram amounts over a period of several years. BROWN and WILSON then supplied various mid and lower-level dealers in and around New Bern with the heroin for sale.
As part of the investigation, law enforcement conducted over twenty controlled purchases of heroin from organization members between November 2016 and July 2017, along with traffic stops and other encounters in which they confirmed that members possessed drugs and guns. Based on that investigation, ATF then obtained authorization for a federal wiretap of cellular phones associated with WILSON and two co-defendants. As a result, agents intercepted calls and texts over a three-month period in late 2017 showing that WILSON was directing the supply and distribution of kilogram-levels of heroin from New York to New Bern, NC. Based on intercepted calls, agents were able to stop and arrest WILSON and two co-defendants traveling back from New York with 3lbs of marijuana and 7 bars of heroin cutting agent.
ATF made arrests of many of the defendants on October 24, 2017, along with searches of five residences associated with the organization. Through the life of the investigation, law enforcement has seized over a kilogram of heroin and twenty firearms.
The defendants include:
DAMIEN LAMONTE BROWN, aka “Dame,” 36, of New Bern, NC. BROWN was convicted in August 2018 by a federal jury of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin, possession with intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin, and possession of a firearm by felon. BROWN was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.
DERRICK LAMONT DAVIS, aka “Gucci,” 35, of Kinston, NC. DAVIS was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin. DAVIS was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment.
DWAYNE LEE STALLINGS, aka “Smiley,” 35, of Cove City, NC. STALLINGS was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.
NASSAR TURE MACK, 37, of New Bern, NC. MACK was convicted of possession of a firearm by felon and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
MARIO CORRELLUS BARGNEARE, aka “Rio,” 39, of New Bern, NC. BARGNEARE was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. BARGNEARE was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment.
DEREK JACQUAN WIGGINS, aka “DJ,” 38, of New Bern, NC. WIGGINS was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, several counts of distributing heroin, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment.
ROY JAMES NOLON, aka “Henny,” 21, of New Bern, NC. NOLON was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
MICHAEL QUALEEK VELASQUEZ, aka “Moo Moo,” 23, of New Bern, NC. VELASQUEZ was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
LAMAR HOSEA WIGGINS, aka “LB,” 39, of New Bern, NC. WIGGINS was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
LASHAWNNA JAQUETTE MCCOTTER, aka “Flossy,” 47, of New Bern, NC. McCOTTER was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana. She was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.
LATREKA DENISE HARDESTY, aka “T,” 27, of New Bern, NC. HARDESTY was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. She was sentenced to time served.
ADRIENNE MICHELLE HALL, 35, of New Bern, NC. HALL was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. She was sentenced to time served.
CAROLINE LOUISE HUGHES, 28, of Alliance, NC. HUGHES was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. She was sentenced to 5 years probation.
Three defendants are scheduled to be sentenced over the course of the next few months. They are:
CALVIN MARK WILSON, aka “Bali,” 34, of New Bern, NC. WILSON was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one thousand grams or more of heroin and a quantity of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana. WILSON faces a sentence of not less than 20 years’ imprisonment.
WILLIE FRANK JAMES AHERN, aka “White, White Bread, Dribs,” 39, of Bayboro, NC. AHERN was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and several instances of distributing quantities of heroin. AHERN faces up to life imprisonment.
WALTER NAJEE GREEN, III, 21, of New Bern, NC. GREEN was convicted of distribution of a quantity of heroin and faces up to 30 years’ imprisonment.
The investigation also led to 8 individuals being charged by the state for drug offenses. Those charges remain pending.
The investigation of this case was conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF), New Bern Police Department, Jacksonville Police Department, Craven County Sheriff’s Office, Pamlico County Sheriff’s Office, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Onslow County Sheriff’s Office, Sampson County Sheriff’s Office, Trent Woods Police Department, Carteret County Sheriff’s Office, Morehead City Police Department, Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office, and with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Assistant United States Attorney Laura S. Howard prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.
NEW BERN – United States Attorney Robert J. Higdon, Jr. announced that in federal court, before Chief United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, CALVIN MARK WILSON, also known as “Bali,” 35, of New Bern, North Carolina was sentenced to 35 years (420 months) in federal prison for conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one thousand (1,000) grams or more of heroin and a quantity of marijuana.
The investigation was part of OCDETF Operation 190, which was named in memory of New Bern Police Department Officer Alexander Thalmann. Officer Thalmann was shot and killed in the line of duty on March 31, 2014 by associates of the defendant’s in this case. An Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) is a joint federal, state, and local cooperative approach to combat drug trafficking and is the nation’s primary tool for disrupting and dismantling major drug trafficking organizations, targeting national and regional level drug trafficking organizations, and coordinating the necessary law enforcement entities and resources to disrupt or dismantle the targeted criminal organization and seize their assets.
WILSON’s sentencing was the culmination of a multi-year investigation into a heroin trafficking ring operating in and around New Bern, North Carolina, and led primarily by two men: Damien Lamonte Brown and Calvin Mark Wilson. Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and members of the New Bern Police Department learned that Brown, WILSON, and others had been involved in ordering heroin from New York City and arranging it to be brought down in multi-kilogram amounts over a period of several years. Brown and WILSON then supplied various mid- and lower-level dealers in and around New Bern with the heroin for sale.
As part of the investigation, law enforcement conducted over twenty controlled purchases of heroin from organization members between November 2016 and July 2017, along with traffic stops and other encounters in which they confirmed that members possessed drugs and guns. Based on that investigation, ATF then obtained authorization for a federal wiretap of cellular phones associated with WILSON and two co-defendants. As a result, agents intercepted calls and texts over a three-month period in 2017 showing that WILSON was directing the supply and distribution of kilogram-levels of heroin from New York to New Bern, NC. Based on intercepted calls, agents were able to stop and arrest WILSON and two co-defendants traveling back from New York with 3lbs of marijuana and 7 bars of heroin cutting agent. Subsequent investigation revealed that hundreds of grams of heroin had traveled separately down from New York to New Bern that day.
ATF made arrests of many of the defendants on October 24, 2017, along with searches of five residences associated with the organization. Through the life of the investigation, law enforcement has seized over a kilogram of heroin and twenty firearms.
The defendants include:
CALVIN MARK WILSON, aka “Bali,” 35, of New Bern, NC. WILSON was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one thousand grams or more of heroin and a quantity of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana. WILSON was sentenced to 420 months’ imprisonment.
DAMIEN LAMONTE BROWN, aka “Dame,” 36, of New Bern, NC. BROWN was convicted in August 2018 by a federal jury of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin, possession with intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin, and possession of a firearm by felon. BROWN was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment.
DERRICK LAMONT DAVIS, aka “Gucci,” 35, of Kinston, NC. DAVIS was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin. DAVIS was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment.
DWAYNE LEE STALLINGS, aka “Smiley,” 35, of Cove City, NC. STALLINGS was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment.
WALTER NAJEE GREEN, III, 21, of New Bern, NC. GREEN was convicted of distribution of a quantity of heroin and was sentenced to 72 months’ imprisonment.
NASSAR TURE MACK, 37, of New Bern, NC. MACK was convicted of possession of a firearm by felon and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
MARIO CORRELLUS BARGNEARE, aka “Rio,” 39, of New Bern, NC. BARGNEARE was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one hundred (100) grams or more of heroin and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. BARGNEARE was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment.
DEREK JACQUAN WIGGINS, aka “DJ,” 38, of New Bern, NC. WIGGINS was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, several counts of distributing heroin, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment.
ROY JAMES NOLON, aka “Henny,” 21, of New Bern, NC. NOLON was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
MICHAEL QUALEEK VELASQUEZ, aka “Moo,” 23, of New Bern, NC. VELASQUEZ was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
LAMAR HOSEA WIGGINS, aka “LB,” 39, of New Bern, NC. WIGGINS was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
LASHAWNNA JAQUETTE MCCOTTER, aka “Flossy,” 47, of New Bern, NC. McCOTTER was convicted of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana. She was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.
LATREKA DENISE HARDESTY, aka “T,” 27, of New Bern, NC. HARDESTY was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. She was sentenced to time served.
ADRIENNE MICHELLE HALL, 35, of New Bern, NC. HALL was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. She was sentenced to time served.
CAROLINE LOUISE HUGHES, 28, of Alliance, NC. HUGHES was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin. She was sentenced to 5 years probation.
There remains one defendant who is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2019:
WILLIE FRANK JAMES AHERN, aka “White, White Bread, Dribs,” 39, of Bayboro, NC. AHERN was convicted of conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and several instances of distributing quantities of heroin. AHERN faces up to life imprisonment.
The investigation also led to 8 individuals being charged by the state for drug offenses. Those charges remain pending.
The investigation of this case was conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF), New Bern Police Department, Jacksonville Police Department, Craven County Sheriff’s Office, Pamlico County Sheriff’s Office, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Onslow County Sheriff’s Office, Sampson County Sheriff’s Office, Trent Woods Police Department, Carteret County Sheriff’s Office, Morehead City Police Department, Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office, and with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Assistant United States Attorney Laura S. Howard prosecuted this case on behalf of the government.
NEW BERN, N.C. – Markel Brown, 20, of Maple Hill North Carolina, was sentenced yesterday to 126 months in prison for 1) Conspiracy to Possess with intent to distribute and distribute of 100 Grams or more of Heroin and 500 grams or more of Cocaine, 2) Possession with intent distribute 500 grams or more of Cocaine and 3) Possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.
According to court documents, evidence presented in court and other documents, on August 13, 2019 law enforcement received information that Brown was returning from Atlanta, Georgia after having obtained a large amount of narcotics to be distributed in Eastern North Carolina. On August 13th, a Robeson County Sheriff’s Officer conducted a traffic stop on a car in which Brown was a passenger. Law enforcement officers searched the car and found more than a kilogram of cocaine and a .22 caliber handgun with altered serial numbers. Brown had $8,992 on his person. During the subsequent investigation, law enforcement uncovered that Brown was providing cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl to the Maple Hill area. Brown was responsible for distributing more than one and half kilograms of cocaine, 380 grams of heroin, 79 grams of a heroin/fentanyl mixture, and 70 grams of methamphetamine between December 2018 and September 2019. On October 24, 2020, while detained, a detention officer observed Brown in possession of homemade alcohol in his cell. When the officer attempted to retrieve the contraband, Brown struck the officer several times with a closed fist in the face and head area injuring the officer.
This is part of operation Ahab’s Harpoon which is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launders, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
G. Norman Acker, III, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jacksonville Police Department and the Roberson and Onslow County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Timothy Severo and Charity Wilson prosecuted the case.
Related court documents and information can be found on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or on PACER by searching for Case No. 7:19-cr-00191-FL-3.
RALEIGH – Robert J. Higdon, Jr., the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, announces that yesterday in Federal court in New Bern, United States District Judge Louise W. Flanagan sentenced CHRISTOPHER LEON BROWN and MARK RAYFIELD BROWN, JR., both of Raleigh, North Carolina to 40 months in prison and 30 months in prison, respectively, for their roles in a health care fraud conspiracy that targeted the North Carolina Medicaid system. The Court ordered the terms of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. Both defendants were also ordered to pay restitution to the North Carolina Medicaid Program, among other terms of the judgment.
CHRISTOPHER LEON BROWN was named in Criminal Information filed on March 31, 2017, which charged him with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. On April 13, 2017, BROWN pled guilty to the charge.
MARK RAYFIELD BROWN, JR. was named in a Criminal Information filed on December 22, 2016, which charged him with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. On February 16, 2017, BROWN, JR. pled guilty to the charge.
A third co-conspirator, DARRYL VASHAUN STANFORD, of Raleigh, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to a Criminal Information on April 13, 2017. On February 22, 2018, STANFORD was sentenced to 34 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution to North Carolina Medicaid Program, among other terms of the judgment.
According to the charging instruments, statements made in court, and other public information, BROWN, BROWN JR., and STANFORD were co-conspirators in a health care fraud scheme that stole hundreds of thousands in funds from the North Carolina Medicaid Program through the purchase and exploitation of stolen Medicaid beneficiary information and clinician information. The stolen information was used by the co-conspirators to submit thousands of false and fraudulent claims for reimbursement for health care services that were never rendered by the listed providers. The co-conspirators targeted the North Carolina Health Choice (NCHC) Health Insurance Program for Children in particular, a comprehensive health coverage program for low-income children which is part of the North Carolina Medicaid system.
Between approximately April 2014 and May 2015, BROWN, BROWN, JR., and STANFORD submitted fraudulent claims to Medicaid through Christian Medical Center, Inc., a purported provider of outpatient behavioral services in eastern North Carolina. In truth, Christian Medical was a shell company or “false front” with no legitimate business operations by this point. BROWN, JR. was the owner of record for Christian Medical and partnered with BROWN (no relation) to facilitate the scheme. Among other things, BROWN purchased stolen Medicaid beneficiary information and forwarded it to STANFORD, an experienced Medicaid biller. STANFORD, in turn, used the stolen information to prepare and electronically file the fraudulent claims on Christian Medical’s behalf through Medicaid’s NCTracks system.
In addition to their roles with respect to the Christian Medical scheme, BROWN and STANFORD were charged with, pleaded guilty to, and sentenced for engaging in a related conspiracy to file thousands of fraudulent Medicaid claims on behalf of multiple other providers. These claims also incorporated stolen Medicaid beneficiary information and clinician information.
Investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the North Carolina Department of Justice, Medicaid Investigations Division. Assistant United States Attorney Adam F. Hulbig prosecuted the case for the government.
St. Louis, MO – Asean Mitchell, 20, of St. Louis, was sentenced to 150 months in prison on three counts of carjacking and one count of brandishing a firearm during a federal crime of violence. He appeared in federal court today before U.S. District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig.
According to court documents, on November 20, 2016, Mitchell and his accomplice, Travion Brown, committed a carjacking in the area of North 11th Street and St. Charles Street in downtown St. Louis. Mitchell and Brown approached the victim. Brown pulled a gun and ordered the victim out of the car. The victim complied. Brown and Mitchell entered the vehicle and drove away.
On November 22, 2016, Mitchell, Brown, and a third accomplice attempted another carjacking in downtown St. Louis. The victim was stopped at a red light at the intersection of 10th Street and Market Street. Mitchell, Brown and the third individual approached the vehicle. One of the carjackers tapped on the vehicle’s window with a gun. The light turned green and the victim successfully drove away.
Mitchell, Brown, and the third individual approached another victim seated in a vehicle at the intersection of Olive Street and 11th Street in St. Louis shortly after their earlier, unsuccessful carjacking. The victim waived the three men away from the vehicle and attempted to drive away when the light turned green. Brown shot the victim in the head. The three carjackers fled from the area. The victim survived.
Co-defendant Travion Brown was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Ronnie L. White on May 4, 2018, to 300 months in prison for his role in the armed carjackings.
“We are grateful that no one lost a life during this carjacking spree and pleased that these defendants have been taken off the streets. There is always more work to be done which is why preventing, disrupting, and prosecuting those who would commit a carjacking is one of this office’s top priorities,” said U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen after Mitchell’s sentencing.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sayler Fleming handled the case for the U.S. 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: 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
DETROIT – A former University of Michigan doctor was sentenced today to 10 years in prison on child exploitation charges, announced United States Attorney Matthew Schneider.
Schneider was joined in the announcement by Special Agent in Charge Steve Francis, Department of Homeland Security Investigation (HSI).
Sentenced was Mark Hoeltzel, 47, of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hoeltzel pleaded guilty on September 13, 2018 before U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow to online enticement of a minor.
According to court records, in 2017, Hoeltzel, a pediatric rheumatoid arthritis doctor, created a Facebook account for a fictitious teenage boy and used this persona to engage in online conversations with numerous minor girls across the country. During these conversations, Hoeltzel was able to convince the minor girls to produce child pornography.
“The Department of Justice is committed to the safety and well-being of the most vulnerable members of our society – our children,” stated United States Attorney Matthew Schneider. “This defendant pretended to be a teenage boy in order to sexually exploit minors, many the same age as the patients he treated.”
"The sentencing handed down in this case reflects the serious nature of the crimes committed, which are particularly troubling given the defendant's role in the community as a physician,'" said Steve Francis. “Mr. Hoeltzel abandoned his oath to "do no harm" and instead sought opportunities to harm and exploit innocent children. This case shows that HSI is committed to investigating child predators regardless of the positions they hold in society.”
This case was investigated by agents of the HSI and detectives from the University of Michigan Police Department, Special Victims Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward prosecuted 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: 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
United States District Judge Victoria A. Roberts sentenced convicted former Wayne County airport official, James Warner, 52, of Commerce Township, to 10 years’ imprisonment today. A federal jury convicted Warner last June of ten counts of conspiracy, federal program bribery, federal program theft, money laundering and obstruction of justice, in connection with maintenance and repair contracts for runways and parking structures at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, United States Attorney Matthew Schneider announced today.
Schneider was joined in the announcement by Steven M. D'Antuono, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Andrea M. Kropf, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Midwestern Region of the United States Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General.
According to the evidence provided during the three-week trial, from May of 2010, through August of 2014, while employed as a field inspector at the Wayne County Airport Authority (WCAA), Warner used his position of trust at the airport to direct more than $43 million in airport infrastructure projects to three coconspirators—William Pritula, Douglas Earles and Gary Tenaglia—in exchange for more than $6 million in kickbacks. This amount represents the highest bribe totals in the Eastern District of Michigan’s history, and one of the largest in the country.
On one occasion, Warner falsified the square footage and asphalt depth on an airport roadway project, creating and later approving a $938,000 bill from Pritula’s company for work which Pritula’s subcontractor only invoiced $275,000. Warner and Pritula then split the profits evenly. On another occasion, Earles’s company submitted two separate invoices—one for $13,429.63, and another for $18,055.26—for the replacement of backflow preventers at the airport. However, as the evidence revealed at trial, the backflow preventers listed in these invoices were neither purchased nor installed at the airport. Since Warner was the public official responsible for verifying these falsified invoices, he was able to conceal this fraud from the airport and authorize the airport to pay Earles for work that was never completed—a percentage of which was ultimately kicked back to Warner.
Each of Warner’s coconspirators, Pritula, 69, of Romulus, Earles, 60, of White Lake, and Tenaglia, 65, of Commerce Township have all pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery and theft.” To date, the government has seized $11 million from Warner and his co-conspirators.
United States Attorney Schneider stated, “This case is yet another example of our office’s commitment to vigorously prosecute corrupt public officials who elevate their own greed over the best interests of the people of Michigan.”
“Through bribery, fraud, and kickbacks, Mr. Warner stole the hard-earned money of the men and women who fund the services provided at Detroit Metropolitan Airport,” said SAC D’Antuono. “I am incredibly proud of the hard work of agents from the FBI and the US Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, and attorneys from the United States Attorney’s Office, whose collective efforts helped bring a measure of justice to this defendant."
“With one of the largest bribes prosecuted to date in the Eastern District of Michigan, today’s sentencing reinforces our commitment to rooting out egregious infrastructure fraud,” stated Andrea M. Kropf, DOT-OIG Regional Special Agent-In-Charge. “It sends a message to public officials who may be motivated by greed to abuse their positions that they will be met with the full force of the criminal justice system.”
The investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eaton P. Brown and Mark Chutkow.
Two high-level executives of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles US LLC (“FCA” or “Fiat Chrysler”) and a senior official of the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”) were sentenced to prison today based on their convictions relating to a scheme to bribe UAW officials by Fiat Chrysler, announced U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider.
Joining in the announcement were Manny Muriel, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit, Michigan office of the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigations, James Vanderberg, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Labor – Office of Inspector General, Timothy Slater, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit, Michigan office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Thomas Murray, District Director, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor-Management Standards.
Jerome Durden, 62, of Rochester, Michigan, was sentenced today to 15 months in prison based on his prior August 2017 guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud the United States before United States District Judge Paul D. Borman. Durden was a former Financial Analyst for Fiat Chrysler, and he had served as the Controller of the joint UAW-Chrysler National Training Center between 2008 and 2015. Durden presented false tax returns on behalf of the National Training Center and a “charitable” organization associated with former UAW Vice President General Holiefield known as the Leave the Light On Foundation in order to conceal over $1.5 million in illegal payments by Fiat Chrysler to senior UAW officials through the National Training Center and the foundation, all done in an effort to affect the labor-management relationship between Fiat Chrysler and the UAW. The senior UAW officials who were bribed included UAW Vice President Holiefield, UAW Assistant Director Virdell King, senior UAW official Keith Mickens, senior UAW official Nancy A. Johnson, who served as the second in command of the UAW’s Chrysler Department from July 2014 through 2016, and others.
The illegal payments included paying off the mortgage on Holiefield’s home, first-class airline travel, designer clothing, furniture, jewelry and custom-made watches.
Keith Mickens, 64, of Clarkston, Michigan was sentenced today to 12 months in prison based on his April 2018 conviction to conspiring with other UAW officials and FCA executives to take illegal payments from Fiat Chrysler. Between 2010 and 2014, Mickens was one of the senior UAW officials responsible for administering the collective bargaining agreements on behalf of tens of thousands of UAW members employed by FCA. Mickens served as a member of the UAW’s National Negotiating Committee in 2011 and was one of the UAW officials responsible for negotiating the collective bargaining agreements between the UAW and FCA. He also served as the co-Director of the National Training Center.
Mickens has admitted to helping transfer over $700,000 from FCA to former UAW Vice President Holiefield using two companies that Holiefield controlled with Monica Morgan, Holiefield’s girlfriend and later wife. FCA executives concealed the illegal payments using the bank account of the UAW-Chrysler National Training Center.
Separate from the illegal activities involving UAW Vice President Holiefield, Mickens admitted that he and other senior UAW officials also accepted thousands of dollars’ worth of clothing, electronics, golf equipment, and other personal items that were paid for by FCA.
Michael Brown, 60, of West Bloomfield, Michigan was sentenced to 12 months in prison based on his felony conviction for providing misleading and incomplete testimony to a federal grand jury. Brown misled the grand jury in a deliberate effort to conceal the existence of the conspiracy to bribe UAW officials by FCA, FCA executives acting in the interest of FCA, the UAW, and UAW officials. Between 2009 and 2016, Brown was employed as a Director for Employee Relations at Fiat Chrysler.
The Court’s sentencings of Durden, Brown, and Mickens mark the third, fourth, and fifth defendants to be sentenced in the ongoing criminal investigation into illegal payoffs to UAW officials. On July 13, 2018, defendant Monica Morgan was sentenced to 18 months in prison and ordered to pay $190,747 in restitution for her tax fraud in connection with the receipt of illegal payments by her husband, the now deceased Holiefield, who had served as the Vice President of the UAW in command of the Chrysler Department. On August 27, 2018, Alphons Iacobelli was sentenced to 66 months in prison and ordered to pay $835,523 in restitution for his involvement in the conspiracy to bribe UAW officials and his submission of false tax returns.
“The Court’s sentences today are further strides forward in our effort to root out corruption in the leadership of the UAW because of illegal payments by Fiat Chrysler and its executives,” said United States Attorney Matthew Schneider. “We want the hard working men and women of the union to know that federal law enforcement will uncover, prosecute, and punish any effort to undermine their collective bargaining process.”
Manny Muriel, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation’s Detroit office, stated, “Corporate Fraud continues to be a top priority for IRS Criminal Investigation. When executives abuse the power they are given, it undermines our trust in the business sector and compromises the integrity of our economic and political system. Today’s sentencings serve as a warning to those who hold positions of trust and leadership. Muriel continued, “IRS-CI and its law enforcement partners will continue to work together to uncover these schemes and hold the corporate and union executives accountable.”
“Mickens, a former senior UAW official, conspired with former FCA management officials, including Durden, to accept illegal payments and other things of value from FCA in exchange for manipulating the collective bargaining agreement process at the expense of UAW members. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards to safeguard the assets of union members,” said James Vanderberg, Special Agent-In-Charge, Chicago Region, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General.
“Today’s sentencings of former FCA executives and a senior UAW official once again demonstrate that those who seek personal gain through deception and fraud will be brought to justice,” said Timothy R. Slater, Special Agent in Charge, Detroit Division of the FBI. “The FBI and our law enforcement partners remain committed to the dogged pursuit of all those responsible for corrupting the collective bargaining process and stealing from the many hardworking and dedicated auto workers in our community.”
“Protecting members against corruption perpetrated by their union leaders is critical to the mission of the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS),” said Thomas Murray, District Director, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor-Management Standards. “OLMS thanks the United States Attorney’s Office for vigorously prosecuting those involved in the conspiracy. We will continue to work cooperatively with our law enforcement partners to ensure that anyone who abuses their union position for personal financial gain will be brought to justice.”
These cases are being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David A. Gardey, Erin S. Shaw, and Adriana Dydell.
A jury convicted a former Wayne County Airport official on ten counts of conspiracy, federal program bribery, federal program theft, money laundering and obstruction of justice, in connection with maintenance and repair contracts for runways and parking structures at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, United States Attorney Matthew Schneider announced today.
Schneider was joined in the announcement by Timothy R. Slater, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Andrea M. Kropf, DOT-OIG Regional Special Agent-In-Charge of the Midwestern Region of the United States Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General.
Convicted was James Warner, 52, of Commerce Township.
The jury deliberated approximately three hours concluding the three-week trial before United States District Judge Victoria Roberts.
According to the evidence provided during trial, from May of 2010, through August of 2014, while employed as a field inspector at the Wayne County Airport Authority (WCAA), Warner engaged in multiple schemes to defraud the WCAA out of millions of dollars. In one scheme, Warner drafted and submitted fraudulently-inflated invoices for work which co-defendant William Pritula, 69, of Romulus, was contracted to perform at the airport. Upon payment by the WCAA to Pritula, Pritula would kickback roughly half of the profits to Warner—a total of over $5 million over four years—the largest bribe prosecuted to date in the Eastern District of Michigan.
In another scheme, Warner drafted and submitted fraudulent invoices on behalf of co-defendant Douglas Earles, 60, of White Late, the owner and operator of North Star Plumbing. In the invoices Warner wrote, he billed the airport for industrial-sized plumbing fixtures which Earles never installed. In exchange, Earles would kickback roughly 40 percent of the profits to Warner--over $100,000 between June of 2010, and August of 2013.
In yet a third conspiracy, Warner demanded money from co-defendant Gary Tenaglia, 65, of Oakland Township. Tenaglia held maintenance and repair contracts for Detroit Metropolitan Airport’s parking structures. Warner both inspected and supervised Tenaglia’s work and concealed any mistakes from the WCAA. In exchange, Warner demanded approximately 10 per cent of each invoice from Tenaglia. In total, Warner paid Tenaglia hundreds of thousands of dollars between May of 2011, and June of 2014. Thus far in the investigation, law enforcement has seized $11.4 million in criminal proceeds including $7.5 million from Pritula and $3.9 million from Warner.
Pritula, Earles, and Tenaglia have been convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery and theft.
Warner left the WCAA in August of 2014. In January of 2017, he began working for the Water and Sewer Department in West Bloomfield Township. Within months, Warner proposed to Tenaglia a continuation of the same scheme the two had at the airport—a demand for 10 percent of each invoice West Bloomfield Township paid Tenaglia.
In addition to the theft, bribery and money laundering offenses, the jury convicted Warner with obstructing justice by altering a document he provided to the FBI during their investigation of this matter.
In total, based on his convictions, Warner is facing a sentencing guidelines range of 292 to 365 months in prison.
United States Attorney Schneider stated, “Today’s conviction reinforces our dedication to prosecuting corrupt public officials who put their own greed over the best interests of the public. This is certainly true here, where the defendant showed little concern for the infrastructure of our very own airport.”
Special Agent-in-Charge Slater stated, "The broad scope of Mr. Warner's crimes demonstrates a profound misappropriation of the public trust. Citizens of the Eastern District deserve integrity and accountability from the officials charged with the operation of all public facilities, including Detroit Metropolitan International Airport. Today's verdict underscores our commitment to holding these officials accountable. I am proud of our investigators and our partners at the Chicago Field Office of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, whose collective efforts helped achieve it."
“Today’s conviction of James Warner, whose blatant disregard for his fiduciary responsibility to properly steward taxpayer dollars, sends a clear signal that such gross violations of public trust will not be tolerated,” stated Andrea M. Kropf, DOT-OIG Regional Special Agent-In-Charge. “The professionalism and dedication of the collective law enforcement and prosecutorial team involved in this case is a testament to an effective criminal justice system working tirelessly to protect the taxpayers’ investment in our nation’s infrastructure from fraud and abuse.”
Each theft and bribery charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. Each of the money laundering conspiracy counts carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The bribery and theft conspiracy counts carry a maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The obstruction of justice count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.
A sentencing date has been set for October 8, 2019.
The investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Transportation. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eaton P. Brown and Mark Chutkow.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bridget Brennan announced today that a federal grand jury sitting in Cleveland has returned a 28-count indictment charging nine individuals for their roles in a scheme to defraud Medicaid. These nine individuals either owned, operated or worked for Eye For Change Youth & Family Services, Inc. (Eye For Change), a non-profit corporation in Cleveland.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bridget Brennan, FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric B. Smith, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Special Agent in Charge Lamont Pugh III and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost made the announcement.
“These defendants are accused of defrauding a tax-payer funded health care benefit program that was created to assist some of the most vulnerable among us,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bridget Brennan. “Their alleged conduct, including the payment of kickbacks, was designed simply to enrich themselves. We are grateful for the hard work of the agencies involved who, like us, are dedicated to bringing allegations of fraud and illegal kickbacks before the court.”
"These individuals engaged in a scheme to defraud tax-payers by submitting fraudulent billing to a federally funded healthcare program, which is supported by hard-working citizens,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric B. Smith. “The FBI and our partners will continue to root out such fraud and hold those engaged in illegal financial dealings responsible in a court of law.”
“The billing of medical services that are not rendered, the payment of kickbacks, and the falsification of documents with respect to medical records are illegal acts commonly used by those who commit healthcare fraud,” said Lamont Pugh III, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General – Chicago Region. “The OIG routinely conducts data analysis in an effort to identify aberrant and potentially fraudulent billing trends and will take action to hold those who seek to defraud federally funded health care programs accountable.”
"There are actually real people out there who are suffering and need help," Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said. "You don't have to make up imaginary patients. A jury of their peers will undoubtedly know some of them. I'm grateful for the state-federal partnership that is bringing these fakes to justice."
Named in the indictment are:
Alfonzo D. Bailey, age 38, of Cleveland, Ohio. Bailey was the incorporator and 100% owner of Eye For Change Youth & Family Services.
David Brown, age 39, of Maple Heights, Ohio. Brown was a marketer and Clients Rights Officer at Eye For Change.
Valerie White, age 51, of Columbus, Ohio. White was employed as a Qualified Mental Health Specialist (QMHS) and a counselor/therapist who provided counseling services to Eye For Change Medicaid beneficiary clients.
Sandra Wilson, age 52, of Cleveland, Ohio. Wilson was employed as an assessor and staffed the crisis hotline at Eye For Change and provided counseling services Medicaid beneficiary clients.
Cheria Oliver, age 31, of Canal Winchester, Ohio. Oliver was employed as a Qualified Mental Health Specialist (QMHS) at Eye For Change and provided counseling services to Medicaid beneficiary clients.
Charchee Tucker, age 43, of Warrensville Heights, Ohio. Tucker was employed as QMHS, QMHS Supervisor, Lead Case Manager, and Director of Marketing and Compliance. Tucker was to provide counseling services to Eye for Change Medicaid beneficiary clients.
Allen Steele, age 38, of Parma, Ohio. Steele was employed as a QMHS at Eye For Change and was able to provide counseling services to Medicaid beneficiary clients.
Kamelah Ganaway, age 43, of Macedonia, Ohio. Ganaway was employed as a QMHS at Eye For Change and was to provide counseling services to Medicaid beneficiary clients.
Tremayne Kellom, age 41, of Cleveland, Ohio.
According to the indictment, from February 2017 through September 2020, the defendants are accused of submitting, or allowing to be submitted, billings to the Medicaid program for services that were never performed and of falsifying records.
The indictment states that Bailey would pay White and Wilson, a Licensed Independent Social Worker (LISW) in order to use Wilson’s LISW provider number and credentials to submit billings and documents regarding mental health screenings that were never performed.
Bailey, Brown, White and Wilson would also submit billings to the Medicaid program for counseling services without an appropriate treatment plan in place for clients, as required by law.
In addition, Bailey, Brown, White and Wilson are accused of allegedly paying kickbacks in the form of cash, gift cards, and rent/bill payments to Medicaid beneficiaries in order to obtain these beneficiaries as clients and to bill Medicaid for services never rendered.
The indictment further states that Bailey, Brown, White and Wilson would direct employees to misdiagnose their Medicaid beneficiaries in order to receive authorization from the Ohio Department of Medicaid to provide services and bill at higher rates.
Bailey, Brown, Oliver, Tucker, Steele, Ganaway and Kellom are also accused of allegedly directing and allowing employees to insert false progress notes into Medicaid beneficiary electronic records in order to create the fictitious documents needed to submit their claims.
As a result of these offenses, the defendants shall forfeit approximately $2.3 million seized during the execution of a federal seizure warrant and all properties associated with Eye For Change in Cleveland, Cleveland Heights and Columbus.
An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation.
In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases it will be less than the maximum.
The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by the Cleveland Division of the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services -- Office of the Inspector General and the Ohio Attorney General’s Healthcare Fraud Section. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael L. Collyer and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan L. Metzler.
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. – On September 4, 2024, Morice Armani Brown, 24 years old, a Jamaican national, currently of Florida, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 63 months by the Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States District Judge, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. Following his imprisonment, he will be on supervised release for a period of one year. The defendant was also ordered to repay nearly $700,000 in restitution to the victim in this case.
As part of the plea agreement filed with the court, Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1341. Brown’s co-conspirators, Marklyn Antonio Forrester, Jamali Jermaine Ramsay, and Jahmarley Kiboki McFarlane, were sentenced to 63 months, 36 months, and 57 months in prison, respectively. A fifth individual, Tessa Nicole Hines, is scheduled to be sentenced in October 2024, for her role in laundering money related to this scheme.
According to court documents, Brown conspired to defraud a 76-year-old Lenoir City resident out of nearly $700,000 by tricking her into believing she had won millions of dollars in a sweepstakes’ competition through the mail. Brown and the co-conspirators convinced the victim to pay various fees and taxes to claim the winnings and traveled to Lenoir City to collect funds from the victim. The conspirators then split the proceeds between themselves and others.
United States Attorney Francis M. Hamilton, III, of the Eastern District of Tennessee made the announcement.
The charges were the result of an investigation by the Lenoir City Police Department and the United States Postal Inspection Service.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anne-Marie Svolto and Michael Deel of the Eastern District of Tennessee are prosecuting the case.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A federal grand jury sitting in Charlotte has returned a criminal indictment against Hal H. Brown Jr., 69, of Asheville, N.C., charging him with securities fraud, wire fraud and transactional money laundering, for orchestrating a $13.7 million investment scheme, announced Andrew Murray, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.
John A. Strong, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Charlotte Division, joins U.S. Attorney Murray in making today’s announcement.
According to allegations contained in the indictment, from at least 2012 through September 2019, Brown fraudulently obtained more than $13.5 million from at least 23 victims, some of whom were at, or near, retirement age, by engaging in an investment scheme through his company Oodles Inc. and its various affiliates (collectively “OODLES”). As alleged in the indictment, to induce victims to invest their money, Brown falsely represented that OODLES owned hundreds of millions of dollars in intellectual property, namely family entertainment shows and movies. As part of the scheme, Brown repeatedly lied to victims about the imminent sale of those intellectual properties to various well-known media companies. To perpetuate the fraud, the indictment alleges that Brown developed marketing material seeking investments or loans for OODLES that claimed large returns on funds invested or lent to the company.
As alleged in the indictment, to convince victims the scheme was legitimate and to appease investors who sought an explanation about delays in payouts, Brown provided victims with a number of fraudulent and misleading statements and fictitious information, including fake bank statements and falsified company agreements, among others.
Brown used a substantial part of victim money on personal expenses unrelated to purported OODLES transactions, and to perpetuate the fraud by making payments to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors, commonly referred to as “Ponzi” payments.
The securities fraud charge carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and a $5 million fine. The wire fraud charge carries a maximum prison term of 20 years and a $250,000 fine. The transactional money laundering charge carries a maximum prison term of 10 years and a fine of not more than twice the amount of criminally derived property in the transaction or $250,000.
The details contained in the indictment are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The FBI’s Charlotte Field Office is leading the investigation.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Ryan and Mark Odulio of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte are prosecuting the case.
In March 2019, Andrew Murray, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, announced the Office’s Elder Justice Initiative, which aims to combat elder financial exploitation by expanding efforts to investigate and prosecute financial scams that target seniors; educate older adults on how to identify scams and avoid becoming victims of financial fraud; and promote greater coordination with law enforcement partners. For more information please visit: https://edit.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/elder-justice-initiative.
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 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: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 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 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
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 fourth most
severe disposition and
Penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
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 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 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: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 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 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
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 fourth most
severe disposition and
Penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
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
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Hal H. Brown Jr., 70, of Asheville, N.C., pleaded guilty to securities fraud and transactional money laundering in federal court today before U.S. Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler, for orchestrating a $22 million Ponzi scheme, announced Andrew Murray, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.
John A. Strong, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Charlotte Division, joins U.S. Attorney Murray in making today’s announcement.
According to admission made in plea documents and today’s plea hearing, from at least 2006 through September 2019, Brown fraudulently obtained more than $22 million from dozens of victims, some of whom were at, or near, retirement age, by engaging in an investment scheme through his company Oodles Inc. and its various affiliates (collectively, “OODLES”). Individual victims invested anywhere from a few thousand to a few million dollars in OODLES. To induce victims to invest their money, Brown falsely represented that OODLES owned hundreds of millions of dollars in intellectual property, namely family entertainment shows and movies. As part of the scheme, Brown repeatedly lied to victims about the imminent sale of those intellectual properties to various well-known media companies. To perpetuate the fraud, Brown developed marketing material seeking investments or loans for OODLES that claimed large returns on funds invested or lent to the company.
As Brown admitted in court today, to convince victims the scheme was legitimate and to appease investors who sought an explanation about delays in payouts, Brown provided victims with a number of fraudulent and misleading statements and fictitious information, including fake bank statements and falsified company agreements, among others.
Brown used a substantial part of victim money on personal expenses unrelated to purported OODLES transactions. He also used funds contributed by new investors to make payments to existing investors, commonly referred to as “Ponzi” payments.
A sentencing date for Brown has not been set. The securities fraud charge carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and a $5 million fine. The transactional money laundering charge carries a maximum prison term of 10 years and a fine of not more than twice the amount of criminally derived property in the transaction or $250,000.
The FBI’s Charlotte Field Office handled the investigation.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Ryan and Mark Odulio of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte are prosecuting the case.
In March 2019, Andrew Murray, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, announced the Office’s Elder Justice Initiative, which aims to combat elder financial exploitation by expanding efforts to investigate and prosecute financial scams that target seniors; educate older adults on how to identify scams and avoid becoming victims of financial fraud; and promote greater coordination with law enforcement partners. For more information please visit: https://edit.justice.gov/usao-wdnc/elder-justice-initiative.
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
PITTSBURGH, PA – Twenty residents of the Western District of Pennsylvania have been charged by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh in four separate but related Indictments with violations of the federal narcotics and firearms laws, United States Attorney Cindy K. Chung announced today.
“This investigation brought together federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to collaboratively address violent crime plaguing neighborhoods on Pittsburgh’s North Side and beyond,” said U.S. Attorney Chung. “We will continue to pursue strategic prosecutions of those who deal drugs and use weapons to threaten the safety of our communities.”
“The FBI is committed to stopping gang violence, getting drugs and weapons off the streets, and making the community safer for our children,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “Today's arrests are the culmination of a year-long investigation that surged resources and focused an investigative strategy to address the violence in Pittsburgh's Northside neighborhoods. We will continue to work closely with our local and state partners to address violent crime.”
“With this indictment, communities can be reassured that all of our local and federal law enforcement agencies are consistently committed to dismantling criminal networks and throttling drug and gun pipelines that hurt children and families. We will continue to collaborate with our law enforcement partners and community members to prevent violent crime because everyone deserves to walk safe streets and live in secure neighborhoods,” said Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Chief, Scott Schubert.
The first Indictment names Johnny Palmer, 35, of Pittsburgh, PA; MarkBrown, 50, of Pittsburgh, PA; and David Clemons, 39, of Pittsburgh, PA. According to the Indictment, Palmer, Brown, Clemons, and others conspired between September 2021 and November 2021 to possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine base (in the form commonly known as “crack”), a Schedule II controlled substance. The Indictment further alleges that the quantity of cocaine base attributable to Palmer is 280 grams or more, and the quantity of cocaine base attributable to Brown and Clemons is 28 grams or more. As to Palmer, the law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 10 years to a maximum of life imprisonment, a fine up to 10,000,000, or both. As to Brown and Clemons, the law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 5 years and up to 40 years of imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000,000, or both.
The second Indictment names Robert Colbert, 40, of Pittsburgh, PA, and Ada Johnson, 36, also of Pittsburgh, PA. According to the Indictment, Colbert and Johnson conspired between September 2021 and November 2021 to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base (in the form commonly known as “crack”), a Schedule II controlled substance. The Indictment further charges Colbert and Johnson with possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine base with the intent to distribute it, and with unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition as convicted felons on November 12, 2021. Federal law prohibits a convicted felon from possessing a firearm or ammunition. As to each defendant, the law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 5 years and up to 40 years of imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000,000, or both.
The third Indictment names Dominique Reed-Graves, 32, of Pittsburgh, PA; Jaron Allen, 31, of McKees Rocks, PA; Marcus Clark, 32, of Pittsburgh, PA; Nehemiah Fisher-Egleston, 27, of McKees Rocks, PA; Lynn Gibson (aka “Menno”), 37, of Pittsburgh, PA; Calvin Gurley, 44, of Pittsburgh, PA; Kenneth Hairston, 47, of Aliquippa, PA; Natalia Hartnett, 23, of McKees Rocks, PA; Logan McMaster, 31, of Ligonier, PA; Keith Oaks, 36, of Pittsburgh, PA; James Wilkins (aka “HB”), 35, of Pittsburgh, PA; James Williams (aka “Bando”), 29, of Pittsburgh, PA; and Shawn Yancey, 29, of Pittsburgh, PA. According to the Indictment, the defendants conspired with each other to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute various types and quantities of Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances, such as heroin, fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine base, between September 2021 and February 2022. The Indictment further charges Reed-Graves (on December 1, 2021), Yancey (on December 14, 2021), Allen (on December 17, 2021), and Gurley (on February 17, 2022) with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Finally, the Indictment charges Yancey and Gurley with unlawfully possessing firearm(s) and ammunition as a convicted felon on December 14, 2021, and February 17, 2022, respectively. As to defendants Reed-Graves, Allen, Clark, Fisher-Egleston, Gurley, McMaster, Oaks, Wilkins, and Yancey, the law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 5 years and up to 40 years imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000,000, or both.
The fourth Indictment names Naqwan Parham, 19, of Pittsburgh, PA; Maurice Williams, 27, of Pittsburgh, PA; and Logan McMaster, 31, of Ligonier, PA. According to the Indictment, the defendants conspired to possess with intent to distribute and distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl, a Schedule II controlled substance, between September 2021, and December 2021. As to each defendant, the law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 5 years and up to 40 years of imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000,000, or both.
Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentences imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offense and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendants.
Assistant United States Attorney Jerome A. Moschetta is prosecuting this case on behalf of the government, with the assistance of Assistant United States Attorney Christopher M. Cook.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police led the multi-agency investigation that also included the Allegheny County Sheriff’s Office, the Allegheny County Probation and Parole Office, the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, the Monroeville Police Department, and Ligonier Township Police Department.
This prosecution is a result of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles high-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten communities throughout the United States. OCDETF uses a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
An indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
NEW ORLEANS - U.S. Attorney Peter G. Strasser announced that CHRISTIE LYNN BROWNING, age 42, a resident of Metairie, Louisiana pled guilty on January 15, 2020 to a dual object conspiracy to obtain possession of oxycodone by fraud and to unlawfully distribute oxycodone.
According to court documents, between November 2017 and January 2019, BROWNING conspired to acquire oxycodone pills by using fictitious prescriptions and to then distribute those oxycodone pills on the black market. BROWNING faces up to 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000,000 and at least three years of supervised release. United States District Court Judge Martin L.C. Feldman set sentencing for April 8, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Strasser praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office for their work investigating the case.
The case is being prosecuted by Jared Hasten of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant United States Attorney Myles Ranier.
LAS VEGAS, Nev. – A California man who was convicted of recruiting and transporting a child from California to Las Vegas, Nevada, to engage in commercial sex acts was sentenced today to 300 months in federal prison, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas Trutanich for the District of Nevada.
After a three-day jury trial in February of 2018, Brandon Lamar Pruitt, 35, of Compton, California, was found guilty of child sex trafficking and transportation of a minor for prostitution. He was previously convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and tampering with a witness or a victim. In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon sentenced Pruitt to a term of lifetime supervised release.
Beginning in 2013, Pruitt persuaded and recruited a 14-year-old girl to prostitute for him. Over the course of the following three years, Pruitt convinced the minor female to stay with him and arranged her travel from California to Las Vegas to engage in commercial sex acts. He acted as the victim’s pimp, took photos of her that were posted online for prostitution dates, and booked hotel rooms for the dates. Pruitt used violent force and the victim’s romantic feelings for him to coerce and entice the victim’s compliance. The victim would give him money she earned from working as a prostitute. After he was arrested, Pruitt tampered with the victim and attempted to prevent her from cooperating with law enforcement in prosecuting the federal criminal charges. Furthermore, Pruitt unlawfully possessed two stolen guns, a Browning .22 caliber buck mark and a Glock .40 caliber, after sustaining prior felony convictions in California.
The case was investigated by the FBI, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Innocence Lost Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Elham Roohani and Christopher Burton prosecuted the case.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals, federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood and for information about internet safety education, visit www.usdoj.gov/psc.
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
The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Vermont stated that today Richard Monroe, age 26, was sentenced to serve 25 years in prison in United States District Court in Rutland, Vermont, for possessing firearms in furtherance of his cocaine trafficking and discharging a handgun and killing Kevin DeOliveira on January 2, 2015. At the time of his death, DeOliveira was 23 years old and enrolled at the University of Vermont. In April, Monroe pleaded guilty to two federal crimes in front of Chief Judge Geoffrey Crawford. He admitted to conspiring with Zachery Hust and others to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine during the second half of 2014. He also pleaded guilty to a firearms charge that he carried, used and possessed firearms during, and in furtherance of, the cocaine conspiracy, and, in particular, that he discharged a handgun on January 2, 2015, resulting in the death of Kevin DeOliveira.
In court, Monroe admitted participating in the cocaine conspiracy. During 2014, Monroe regularly obtained quantities of cocaine from DeOliveira and redistributed part of that cocaine to various customers in the Burlington area. In late 2014, Hust joined the conspiracy. For example, Hust and Monroe planned to obtain a kilogram of cocaine to sell to a marijuana customer of Hust, though that deal never came to fruition. During 2014, the conspiracy involved well over 500 grams of cocaine.
Monroe also acknowledged carrying, using, and possessing firearms in furtherance of this cocaine conspiracy. In 2014, the defendant possessed several firearms, including two handguns, a Glock and a Browning Buckmark .22. He regularly carried the Glock or displayed it in his residence when distributing cocaine. Monroe also admitted shooting DeOliveira and killing him on January 2, 2015. In late 2014, Monroe had a financial dispute with DeOliveira over several ounces of cocaine that had been damaged. DeOliveira claimed that the defendant owed him several thousand dollars for the cocaine. Monroe disputed this debt. On the morning of January 2, 2015, Monroe approached the door of DeOliveira's residence at 58 Green Street in Burlington. When DeOliveira opened the door of his apartment, the defendant discharged his Browning Buckmark .22 pistol, firing one bullet into DeOliveira’s eye. This shot killed Kevin DeOliveira.
U.S. Attorney Christina Nolan stated: “we commend our law enforcement partners in the Burlington Police Department and ATF for their collaboration and dogged investigation, which resulted in justice for Kevin DeOliveira and his devoted family. We know they continue to grieve, but we hope today’s significant sentence gives them some peace and an opportunity to move forward. This was a senseless crime of terrible violence that rocked the Burlington community. We hope the resolution of this case will be a signal to that community and the entire state that the U.S. Attorney’s Office and its partners at all levels will not tolerate violence in connection with the drug trade or in any other context, and that we will always join together to rectify this form of injustice and keep our communities safe. We also thank the Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s Office for its early assistance with this important case.”
The charges Monroe pleaded guilty to carry a mandatory minimum of 15 years, with a maximum sentence of life. Monroe, however, pleaded guilty pursuant to a binding plea agreement in which the parties agreed to a sentence of 25 years in prison. Today, the court accepted the plea agreement after a hearing before the court where both Monroe and Kevin’s mother addressed Chief Judge Crawford. Monroe has been detained since his arrest on June 12, 2017.
“Richard Monroe murdered Kevin DeOliveira in 2015. Proving this beyond a reasonable doubt and holding him accountable for this killing was not a simple matter, but that is why the men and women of the United States Attorney's Office and the Burlington Police Department are relentless in seeking justice for the crime victims in our city," said Brandon del Pozo, the Chief of Police of Burlington, Vermont. "Monroe's sentencing today will not bring Kevin back, but it will remind those who loved him that we did not forget that the government had a duty to hold his assailant responsible. And so he will be."
“Today’s sentencing demonstrates ATF’s commitment to targeting violent criminals who possess firearms in furtherance of narcotics trafficking”, said Mickey Leadingham, ATF Special Agent in Charge Field of the Boston Field Division. “Additionally, ATF’s forensic laboratory played a pivotal role in this investigation as they did specialized ballistic comparisons to the recovered firearm. ATF will continue to collaborate with our law enforcement partners to eliminate these type of crimes and keep our communities safe.”
The arrest of Monroe was the culmination of a multi-agency investigation that began in early 2015. The collaborative effort was led by the Burlington Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. United States Attorney Christina E. Nolan and Assistant United States Attorney Paul J. Van de Graaf prosecuted the case. Monroe is represented by Attorneys Mark Kaplan and Natasha Sen.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. Attorney General Jeff Sessions reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally-based strategies to reduce violent crime.
The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Vermont stated that, on April 18, 2018, Richard Monroe, age 25, pleaded guilty in United States District Court in Rutland, Vermont, to possessing firearms in furtherance of his cocaine trafficking and to discharging a handgun and killing Kevin DeOliveira on January 2, 2015. At the time of his death, DeOliveira was 23 years old and enrolled at the University of Vermont. Specifically, Monroe pleaded to two federal crimes in front of Chief Judge Geoffrey Crawford. He admitted to conspiring with Zachery Hust and others to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine during the second half of 2014. He also pleaded guilty to a firearms charge that he carried, used and possessed firearms during, and in furtherance of, the cocaine conspiracy, and, in particular, that he discharged a handgun on January 2, 2015, resulting in the death of Kevin DeOliveira.
In court, Monroe admitted participating in the cocaine conspiracy. During 2014, Monroe regularly obtained quantities of cocaine from DeOliveira and redistributed part of that cocaine to various customers in the Burlington area. In late 2014, Hust joined the conspiracy. For example, Hust and Monroe planned to obtain a kilogram of cocaine to sell to a marijuana customer of Hust, though that deal never came to fruition. During 2014, the conspiracy involved well over 500 grams of cocaine.
Monroe also admitted carrying, using, and possessing firearms in furtherance of this cocaine conspiracy. In 2014, the defendant possessed several firearms, including two handguns, a Glock and a Browning Buckmark .22. He regularly carried the Glock or displayed it in his residence when distributing cocaine. Monroe also admitted shooting DeOliveira and killing him on January 2, 2015. In late 2014, Monroe had a financial dispute with DeOliveira over several ounces of cocaine that had been damaged. DeOliveira claimed that the defendant owed him several thousand dollars for the cocaine. Monroe disputed this debt. On the morning of January 2, 2015, Monroe approached the door of DeOliveira's residence at 58 Green Street in Burlington. When DeOliveira opened the door of his apartment, the defendant discharged his Browning Buckmark .22 pistol, firing one bullet into DeOliveira’s eye. This shot killed Kevin DeOliveira.
The charges Monroe pleaded guilty to carry a mandatory minimum of 15 years, with a maximum sentence of life. Monroe, however, pleaded guilty pursuant to a binding plea agreement in which the parties agreed to a sentence of 25 years in prison. The court accepted the plea but deferred acceptance of the plea agreement until after the court’s consideration of the presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office. If the court rejects the plea agreement, Monroe will have the option of withdrawing his guilty plea.
The arrest of Monroe was the culmination of a multi-agency investigation that began in early 2015. The collaborative effort was led by the Burlington Police Department, U.S. Marshal Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s Office also assisted extensively with the investigation of the case, particularly in its early stages.
U.S. Attorney Christina E. Nolan commended the extraordinary investigative work of the Burlington Police Department and the ATF and the contributions of the Chittenden County State’s Attorney’s Office. She stated: “this was a dogged investigation involving local and federal law enforcement and local and federal prosecutors that spanned years and entailed extensive cooperation. I commend the top-notch team effort that resulted, finally, in justice for the victim’s family and closure for them and our community. This kind of senseless violence in connection with the drug trade is abhorrent and we will continue to come together to put a stop to it. Those who would use violence, or carry or discharge firearms, to further their drug business, must understand that law enforcement will unite and work tirelessly to show zero tolerance and achieve justice. You will be priority targets for federal prosecution.”
State’s Attorney Sarah George commented: “Our office is extremely grateful to the many agencies who played a part in the investigation, prosecution, and resolution of this heinous and senseless murder. We are incredibly relieved that both justice and closure have finally come for Mr. DeOliveira and his family.”
“We will investigate this city’s homicides until every lead is exhausted or an arrest is made, and we are reassured by the knowledge that our partners in the US Attorney’s office are just as determined and relentless,” said Brandon del Pozo, Burlington’s Chief of Police. “The city owes a debt of gratitude to this top-notch team of detectives and prosecutors. They have given closure to the family of the victim and made sure justice was served to Mr. Monroe.”
United States Attorney Christina E. Nolan and Assistant United States Attorney Paul J. Van de Graaf are prosecuting the case. Monroe is represented by Attorneys Mark Kaplan and Natasha Sen.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. Attorney General Jeff Sessions reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally-based strategies to reduce violent crime.
MADISON, WIS. – Timothy M. O’Shea, United States Attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, announced that Lildre S. Brown, 36, Markham, Illinois, was sentenced November 7, 2024, by Chief U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson to 85 months in federal prison for distributing fentanyl. The prison term will be followed by 6 years of supervised release. Brown pled guilty to this charge on July 18, 2024.Between December 2023 and February 2024, Brown distributed fentanyl laced heroin on three separate occasions in the Madison area. On one of these occasions, Brown sent co-defendant Nicole Sanders to deliver almost 100 grams of fentanyl. On the two other occasions, co-defendant Simmeka Tibbs delivered the fentanyl for Brown. As part of the investigation, agents executed a search warrant at Sanders’ residence and found another 72 grams of fentanyl in the trunk of her car.At the time of these offenses, Brown was on supervised release from a previous federal drug conviction. Judge Peterson revoked that supervision and imposed a two-year prison term. Both sentences will be served at the same time.At Brown’s sentencing, Judge Peterson highlighted that Brown continued to sell drugs while on federal supervision. Judge Peterson was also concerned by the amount of fentanyl involved and by the fact that Brown involved others in his criminal activities.All three defendants who were charged in this trafficking scheme have pled guilty. Tibbs will be sentenced on November 19, 2024, and Sanders on November 22, 2024.The charges against Brown, Tibbs, and Sanders were the result of an investigation conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Rock County Sheriff’s Office, Madison Police Department, and the Markham Illinois Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney William M. Levins prosecuted this case.
MARKED TREE—Eighteen defendants accused of distributing large amounts of methamphetamine in northeast Arkansas are in custody after federal and state authorities made several arrests in Poinsett County this morning as part of an ongoing drug trafficking investigation. Jonathan Ross, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Alicia D. Corder, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Little Rock Field Office, announced today’s arrests. The large-scale drug operation in northeast Arkansas is, according to a federal indictment, headed by Jack Brown, 58, of Marked Tree, Reginald Hendrix, 53, of Trumann, and Dewayne Morris, 36, Trumann. A team of law enforcement agencies in the area coordinated to arrest 17 individuals this morning. Another defendant was already in state custody. Today’s arrests are in conjunction with the unsealing of the indictment of 21 individuals who were charged by a federal grand jury on February 6, 2025. Twenty of the 21 defendants are charged together in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Three additional coconspirators who live outside the area have been indicted but have not yet been arrested. The arrests stem from an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, or OCDETF, investigation that began in July 2023. Most the defendants listed in the indictment are from the small Arkansas towns of Trumann and Marked Tree. The indictment marks the first large-scale federal investigation into that section of the state. The investigation, which was headed by the FBI, involved numerous controlled purchases of methamphetamine from members of the conspiracy. Additionally, throughout the investigation law enforcement agents intercepted numerous phone calls in which the conspiracy members discussed trafficking what was in total multiple pounds of methamphetamine. “The arrests of these defendants continue to show the commitment of our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office to focus on making our communities better,” stated United States Attorney Ross. “Through the collaborative efforts of these law enforcement agencies, we were able to make a significant impact in getting these violent drug traffickers out of the community.” “Ridding Arkansas communities of dangerous narcotics and violent criminals is a top priority for law enforcement across the state,” said FBI Little Rock Special Agent in Charge Alicia D. Corder. “Today’s arrests demonstrate the FBI’s commitment to fostering safer communities for the citizens of Arkansas, and we will continue to collaborate with our federal, state, and local partners on this shared goal.” This effort is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) operation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF. Those arrested today will be arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on Thursday, February 27. Today’s arrests are the result of a joint investigation between the FBI; the Drug Enforcement Administration; U.S. Marshals Service; ICE; Arkansas State Police; the Poinsett County Sheriff’s Office; Trumann Police Department; Jonesboro Police Department; Craighead County Sheriff’s Office; Marion Police Department; West Memphis Police Department; Blytheville Police Department; the Arkansas Second Judicial Drug Task Force; and the Arkansas National Guard Counter Drug Task Force. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lauren Eldridge.# # #Additional information about the office of theUnited States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, is available online athttps://www.justice.gov/edarX (formerly known as Twitter):@USAO_EDAR
Baltimore, Maryland – A federal grand jury has indicted twelve Baltimore men on charges related to a drug trafficking operation in East Baltimore. The indictment unsealed today charges the defendants with distribution of heroin and crack cocaine. Two defendants are charged with Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking and Conspiracy to Possess a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking; one of those defendants is also charged with Felon in Possession of a Firearm. Another defendant is also charged with Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking.
The indictment was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur and Special Agent in Charge Daniel L. Board Jr. of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Baltimore Field Division.
According to the thirteen-count indictment, in November of 2017, the ATF initiated an investigation into a drug trafficking organization. The organization was allegedly responsible for distributing large quantities of heroin and cocaine in the 2100 block of Aiken Street in Baltimore, Maryland.
The following defendants are charged in the indictment unsealed today;
Devin O’Cain, a/k/a Dev, a/k/a Dex, age 26, of Baltimore, Maryland;
Charles Alston, a/k/a Nub, age 28, of Baltimore, Maryland;
James Boykin, a/k/a Mal, age 32, of Baltimore, Maryland;
Antonio Santiful, a/k/a Tony, age 29, of Essex, Maryland;
Michael Brown, a/k/a Dirt, age 38, of Baltimore, Maryland;
Brian Cunningham, a/k/a Shug, age 44, of Middle River, Maryland;
Allen Griffin, a/k/a Max, a/k/a Mean, age 30, of Baltimore, Maryland;
Wayne Chambers, a/k/a Chedder, age 21, of Baltimore, Maryland;
Lamont Ferguson, a/k/a Lonnie, a/k/a Lil Yougin, age 26, of Baltimore, Maryland;
Markytis Brown, a/k/a Money, age 32, of Baltimore, Maryland;
John Williams, a/k/a Little, and 34, of Baltimore, Maryland; and
Sheldon Hill, age 64, of Baltimore, Maryland.
All of the defendants face a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a maximum of 40 years imprisonment for the drug conspiracy charge. Chambers and Alston face a minimum of 5 years in prison to run consecutive with a maximum sentence of life for the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. O’Cain and Alston also face an additional maximum of 20 years in prison for the charged Conspiracy to Possess a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking.
Nine defendants are currently detained. The whereabouts of Sheldon Hill and Allen Griffin are unknown.
Anyone who may have information on the whereabouts of Hill or Griffin is asked to contact the ATF-Baltimore Field Division at 1-888-ATF-TIPS, ATFtips@atf.gov, or text ATFBAL to 63975.
An indictment is not a finding of guilt. An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings.
United States Attorney Robert K. Hur commended the ATF and the Baltimore Police Department for their work in the investigation. Mr. Hur thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Patricia McLane and Brandon Moore who are 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 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
Baltimore, Maryland – William Brown IV, age 41, of New Market, Maryland, pleaded guilty today to two counts of production of child pornography involving two minor female victims.
The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Erek L. Barron; Special Agent in Charge James R. Mancuso of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Baltimore; Frederick County Sheriff Charles A. “Chuck” Jenkins; and Frederick County State’s Attorney J. Charles Smith III.
According to his guilty plea, beginning in August 2019 and continuing until January 2020, Brown repeatedly documented his sexual abuse of Jane Doe 1 by taking photographs and videos of the sexual abuse. Brown also posed as GG, an adult film actor, and as a teenage boy to repeatedly coerce Jane Doe 1 to send him photographs of herself engaging in sexually explicit conduct through an Internet application, which she did. Brown also admitted producing sexually explicit images of Jane Doe 2 over a two-year period, again posing as GG, and by installing a covert camera in a bathroom used by Jane Doe 2.
Specifically, as detailed in the plea agreement, in the summer of 2019, while posing as a teenage boy, Brown met Jane Doe 1 online, and began a relationship with her that included the exchange of sexually explicit photographs. Brown sent Jane Doe 1 photographs of a teenage boy engaged in sexually explicit conduct that he had acquired online and coerced Jane Doe 1 to send sexually explicit photographs of herself. Brown again contacted Jane Doe 1 online posing as GG—an adult film actor and musician who resides in Miami, Florida. Brown repeatedly sent Jane Doe 1 sexually explicit photographs of GG that he had previously obtained on the Internet and coerced Jane Doe 1 to send him sexually explicit photographs of herself via the Internet application.
Jane Doe 1 eventually discovered that Brown was posing as a teenage boy and Brown disclosed his age and true identity to her. Brown and Jane Doe 1 eventually met in person. Beginning in September 2019 Brown met Jane Doe 1 approximately four times per week to engage in illegal sexual conduct at locations in Frederick County, Maryland, including, Brown’s home, Brown’s van, and Jane Doe 1’s home. Brown would frequently use his cellular phone to take photographs and videos of his abuse of Jane Doe 1.
Brown admitted that he coerced Jane Doe 1 to send him sexually explicit photographs and videos of herself and would send her depictions of himself masturbating. Brown also used an online video-teleconference system to view live-stream video of Jane Doe 1 engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Brown provided Jane Doe 1 with sex toys, lingerie, and a phone to use to communicate with him without her parents’ knowledge. Without Jane Doe 1’s knowledge or consent, Brown used online monitoring tools to track Jane Doe 1’s activity online and capture screenshots and videos of her activity, including any communications she had with others concerning him or GG.
According to his plea agreement, Brown, again posing as GG, met Jane Doe 2 online when she was approximately 12-13 years old. Over a period of years, Brown, posing as GG, coerced Jane Doe 2 to send him sexually explicit photographs of herself. On several occasions, Brown, posing as GG, provided Jane Doe 2 with cash in exchange for sending him sexually explicit photographs, which he hid at his residence. Posing as GG, Brown also sent Jane Doe 2 various sex-related items in the mail, including lingerie, sex toys, and a DVD containing adult pornography. Between June 2018 and September 2019, Brown installed a covert camera in a bathroom used by Jane Doe 2 without her knowledge, which captured images of Jane Doe 2 nude. Brown eventually downloaded these images to his smartphone. As he had with Jane Doe 1, Brown also used an online monitoring tool, without Jane Doe 2’s knowledge or consent, to track her activity online and capture screenshots and videos of her activity, including any communications she had with GG or others.
On February 3, 2020, law enforcement arrested Brown and executed a search and seizure warrant at his residence. On February 4, 2020, law enforcement executed a second search and seizure warrant at the residence. During the execution of the warrants, law enforcement seized, among other things, a personal computer, Brown’s work computer, a smartphone, and a hard drive which was hidden within a hollowed-out book.
The seized items were forensically examined. The phone, personal and work computers were found to contain depictions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The personal computer and phone also contained screenshots of conversations between Brown, posing as GG, and Jane Doe 1 and numerous artifacts from the communication and tracking applications. Brown’s phone also reflected that Brown had repeatedly accessed GG’s webpage to obtain nude photos of GG, as well as other sites referring to GG, and sites regarding catfishing—i.e., creating a fictitious online persona on social media to target a specific victim. Finally, the hard drive, which was hidden within a hollowed-out book at Brown’s residence, contained approximately 100 images of minors, including prepubescent minors, engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Brown also admitted that he attempted to obstruct justice by writing a letter to one of the victims, after his arrest, in an effort to influence her potential testimony in connection with this matter.
Brown and the government have agreed that, if the Court accepts the plea agreement, Brown will be sentenced to between 18 years and 27 years in federal prison. U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake has scheduled sentencing for March 4, 2022 at 2:00 p.m.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorney’s Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc. For more information about Internet safety education, please visit www.justice.gov/psc and click on the "Resources" tab on the left of the page.
United States Attorney Erek L. Barron commended the HSI, Frederick County Sheriff’s Office, and the Frederick County State’s Attorney’s Office for their work in the investigation and prosecution. Mr. Barron thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul A. Riley and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Joyce King, who are prosecuting the federal case.
For more information on the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to help the community, please visit www.justice.gov/usao-md/project-safe-childhood and https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach.
BILLINGS — A Sidney man who admitted to trafficking large quantities of methamphetamine in the community after law enforcement seized more than six pounds of the drug from his car was sentenced today to 15 years in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release, U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich said.
Markel Dean Brown, 60, pleaded guilty in January to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth and distribution of meth.
U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters presided.
The government alleged in court documents that in January 2022, law enforcement learned that Brown was distributing meth in Sidney and coordinated a controlled purchase of a half-pound of meth from Brown for $1,500. Investigators further learned that Brown would be traveling out of state to pick up a supply of meth and that Brown went to Texas. The Montana Highway Patrol conducted a traffic stop of Brown’s vehicle when it returned to Montana and ultimately served a search warrant on the vehicle. Law enforcement seized three packages of 100 percent pure meth totaling 6.6 pounds. Agents also searched Brown’s cell phone and found messages that discussed the coordination of Brown picking up meth in Texas. The total amount of meth seized from Brown was 7.1 pounds, which is the equivalent of 25,730 doses.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie R. Patten prosecuted the case, which was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and Montana Division of Criminal Investigation.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that the following persons were arraigned or appeared this week before U.S. Magistrate judges on indictments handed down by the Grand Jury or on criminal complaints. The charging documents are merely accusations and defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty:
Appearing in Great Falls before U.S. Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston and pleading not guilty on Oct. 17 was:
Lavanchie Patricia Goodbird, aka Lavanchie Gourneau, 30, of Wolf Point, on charges of kidnapping of individual under 18, assault resulting in serious bodily injury and assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to minor. If convicted of the most serious crime, Goodbird faces a mandatory minimum 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and five years to life of supervised release. Goodbird was detained pending further proceedings. The FBI, Fort Peck Law Enforcement, Roosevelt County Sheriff’s Office and Wolf Point Police Department investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-77.
Appearing in Billings before U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan and pleading not guilty on Oct. 19 was:
Brian Kole Hofferber, 34, of Billings, on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and fentanyl, possession with intent to distribute meth and fentanyl and possession of firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. If convicted of the most serious crime, Hofferber faces a mandatory minimum 10 years to life in prison, a $10 million fine and at least five years of supervised release on the drug crime and a mandatory minimum five years to life in prison, consecutive to any other sentence, a $250,000 fine and five years of supervised release on the firearm crime. Hofferber was detained pending further proceedings. The Eastern Montana High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force and FBI’s Western Transnational Organized Crime Task Force investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-77.
Shaylene Jo Suchy, 35, of Seattle, Washington, on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute meth. If convicted of the most serious crime, Suchy faces a mandatory minimum five years to 40 years in prison, a $5 million fine and at least four years of supervised release. Suchy was detained pending further proceedings. The Eastern Montana High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-114.
Appearing on Oct. 18 was:
Travis Alan-Cody Pair, 38, a transient, on charges of felon in possession of a firearm. If convicted of the most serious crime, Pair faces a maximum of 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release. Pair was detained pending further proceedings. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-110.
Marshall Daniel Dammann, 19, of a transient, on charges of robbery affecting commerce and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. If convicted of the most serious crime, Dammann faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release on the robbery crime and a mandatory minimum seven years to life in prison, consecutive to any other sentence, on the firearm crime if found to have brandished a gun. Dammann was detained pending further proceedings. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Billings Police Department investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-116.
Ben Michael Williamson, 38, of Billings, on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and felon in possession of a firearm. If convicted of the most serious crime, Williamson faces a mandatory minimum 10 years to life in prison, a $10 million fine and at least four years of supervised release on the drug crime and a mandatory minimum five years to life in prison, consecutive to any other crime, a $250,000 fine and five years of supervised release on the crime of possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Williamson was detained pending further proceedings. The FBI’s Western Transnational Organized Crime Task Force and Eastern Montana High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-100.
Markel Dean Brown, 60, of Sidney, on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth, possession with intent to distribute meth and distribution of meth. If convicted of the most serious crime, Brown faces a mandatory minimum 10 years to life in prison, a $10 million fine and at least five years of supervised release. Brown was detained pending further proceedings. The Drug Enforcement Administration and Montana Division of Criminal Investigation investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-103.
Jesse Lee Hopkins, 38, a transient, on charges of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. If convicted of the most serious crime, Hopkins faces a maximum of 30 years in prison, a $1 million fine and five years of supervised release on the bank fraud crime and a mandatory minimum two years in prison, consecutive to any other sentence, a $250,000 fine and one year of supervised release on the aggravated identity theft crime. Hopkins was detained pending further proceedings. Homeland Security Investigations and the Billings Police Department investigated the case. PACER case reference. 22-108.
The progress of cases may be monitored through the U.S. District Court Calendar and the PACER system. To establish a PACER account, which provides electronic access to review documents filed in a case, please visit http://www.pacer.gov/register.html. To access the District Court’s calendar, please visit https://ecf.mtd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/PublicCalendar.pl.
CAMDEN, N.J. – Two members of an Atlantic City drug-trafficking organization, including the leader of the organization, pleaded guilty today to distributing large amounts of heroin throughout Atlantic City, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito said.
Khalif Toombs, 30, of Egg Harbor Township, NJ, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler in Camden federal court to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin.
Nasir Brown, 27, of Atlantic City, NJ, also pleaded guilty to an information charging him with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin.
Eight other members of the drug trafficking conspiracy – Wilbert Toombs, Quadir Stanley, Dean Johnson, Khalif Davis, Joseph Aversa, Thomas Randall, Mayda Hernandez, and Sarah Taliaferro – previously have pleaded guilty. The charges against twelve other defendants remain pending.
According to documents filed in the case and statements made in court:
Toombs, Brown, and other members of the drug conspiracy trafficked heroin from Paterson, New Jersey and into Atlantic City, New Jersey throughout the course of the investigation. Toombs admitted in court to conspiring with others to traffic between three and ten kilograms of heroin during this time and to being a manager and supervisor of the drug trafficking conspiracy which operated throughout Atlantic County. An investigation led by the FBI used physical and video surveillance, confidential informants, consensual recordings, and two court authorized wiretaps to uncover the operations of Toombs and his many coconspirators. The investigation tracked multiple stamps of heroin being distributed by Toombs and others, including, “AK-47,” “Apple,” “Fortnite,” “Rolex,” “Frank Lucas,” “Bentley,” “Pandora,” and “9 ½.” Between January 1, 2017 and June 21, 2019, these stamps have accounted for 48 deaths and 84 non-fatal overdoses in the State of New Jersey.
The count to which Toombs pleaded guilty carries a mandatory penalty of 10 years in prison, a maximum potential penalty of a life in prison, and up to a $10 million fine. His sentencing is scheduled for May 12, 2020.
The count to which Brown pleaded guilty carries a mandatory penalty of 5 years in prison, a maximum potential penalty of 40 years in prison, and up to a $5 million fine. His sentencing is scheduled for May 12, 2020.
U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI’s Safe Streets South Jersey Violent Incident and Gang Task Force, Atlantic City Resident Agency, and FBI-Newark, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie; officers of the Atlantic City Police Department, under the direction of Chief Henry White; the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Damon Tyner; the Atlantic County Sheriff’s Department, under the direction of Sheriff Eric Scheffler; and the Pleasantville Police Department, under the direction of Chief Sean Riggin, with the investigation leading to today’s guilty pleas. He also thanked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations; the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement Administration; and the N.J. State Police for their assistance.
This case is being conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations, and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Martha K. Nye of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division in Trenton.
For the twelve defendants whose charges remain pending, the charges and allegations are merely accusations, and they are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Defense counsel:
Toombs: Jerome Ballarotto Esq., Trenton, New Jersey
Brown: Mark Catanzaro Esq., Mount Holly, New Jersey
CAMDEN, N.J. – Twenty-two people have been charged for their roles as members, associates, and suppliers of an Atlantic City, New Jersey-based drug-trafficking organization that distributed heroin throughout the area, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.
Nineteen defendants were arrested today, one defendant was in custody on previous state charges, and two defendants are not yet in custody. All of the defendants are charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute over one kilogram of heroin. The defendants arrested today are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio in Camden federal court. (See chart below.)
“The defendants charged today have been flooding the streets of Atlantic City and surrounding towns with heroin, often with tragic results,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “Numerous deaths and overdoses have been linked to the ‘brands’ pushed by these drug traffickers. With our law enforcement partners, we are working to get these drugs, and the organizations that distribute them, off the streets of Atlantic City.”
“From international terrorists to street level drug dealers, the FBI is committed to keeping you safe,” FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Gregory W. Ehrie said. “Today's operation should serve as a warning to those thinking of filling the void created by the arrests - we aren’t finished. Our agents are dedicated and persistent. We will continue our efforts to free the community of deadly drugs and drug dealers. We will continue on our mission to protect the public.”
"This is a great day for Atlantic City, and a great day for Atlantic County," Atlantic City Police Chief Henry White Jr. said. "The dismantling of an organization that has brought sorrow and anguish to so many families through the distribution of deadly narcotics is a win for the community. Together, with our federal, state and local partners, we have showed those that wish to invade and flood our neighborhoods with deadly drugs that it will not be tolerated. We will continue to fight on behalf of the men, women and children of our respective communities."
According to the documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
An authorized wiretap investigation revealed that from April of 2017 through June of 2019, the drug trafficking organization’s leader, Khalif Toombs, operated a massive drug distribution ring, utilizing multiple stash houses throughout Atlantic City and numerous drug couriers to re-distribute the heroin. Toombs and his associates coordinated their efforts through the use of phone calls, text messages, and social media. The investigation revealed that Toombs obtained his heroin from a supplier in Paterson, New Jersey, and used Atlantic City associates to make frequent trips to Paterson to obtain his resupply of heroin.
Through the course of the investigation, the FBI determined that Toombs and his associates were distributing multiple “stamps,” or brands, of heroin, including “AK-47,” “Apple,” “Fortnite,” “Rolex,” “Frank Lucas,” “Bentley,” “Pandora,” and “9 ½.” Between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 21, 2019, drugs with these stamps have accounted for 48 deaths and 84 non-fatal overdoses in New Jersey, according to the N.J. State Police Office of Drug Monitoring and Analysis.
The count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin with which each defendant is charged is punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison.
U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI’s Safe Streets South Jersey Violent Incident and Gang Task Force, Atlantic City Resident Agency, and FBI, Newark, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Ehrie; officers of the Atlantic City Police Department, under the direction of Chief White; the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Damon Tyner; the Atlantic County Sheriff’s Department, under the direction of Sheriff Eric Scheffler; and the Pleasantville Police Department, under the direction of Chief Sean Riggin, with the investigation leading to today’s charges. He also thanked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations; the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement Administration; and the N.J. State Police for their assistance.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Martha K. Nye of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Camden.
This case was conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
The charges and allegations contained in the complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered 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: 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
CAMDEN, N.J. – Twenty-two people have been charged for their roles as members, associates, and suppliers of an Atlantic City, New Jersey-based drug-trafficking organization that distributed heroin throughout the area, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.
Nineteen defendants were arrested today, one defendant was in custody on previous state charges, and two defendants are not yet in custody. All of the defendants are charged by complaint with one count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute over one kilogram of heroin. The defendants arrested today are scheduled to appear this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio in Camden federal court. (See chart below.)
“The defendants charged today have been flooding the streets of Atlantic City and surrounding towns with heroin, often with tragic results,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “Numerous deaths and overdoses have been linked to the ‘brands’ pushed by these drug traffickers. With our law enforcement partners, we are working to get these drugs, and the organizations that distribute them, off the streets of Atlantic City.”
“From international terrorists to street level drug dealers, the FBI is committed to keeping you safe,” FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Gregory W. Ehrie said. “Today's operation should serve as a warning to those thinking of filling the void created by the arrests - we aren’t finished. Our agents are dedicated and persistent. We will continue our efforts to free the community of deadly drugs and drug dealers. We will continue on our mission to protect the public.”
"This is a great day for Atlantic City, and a great day for Atlantic County," Atlantic City Police Chief Henry White Jr. said. "The dismantling of an organization that has brought sorrow and anguish to so many families through the distribution of deadly narcotics is a win for the community. Together, with our federal, state and local partners, we have showed those that wish to invade and flood our neighborhoods with deadly drugs that it will not be tolerated. We will continue to fight on behalf of the men, women and children of our respective communities."
According to the documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
An authorized wiretap investigation revealed that from April of 2017 through June of 2019, the drug trafficking organization’s leader, Khalif Toombs, operated a massive drug distribution ring, utilizing multiple stash houses throughout Atlantic City and numerous drug couriers to re-distribute the heroin. Toombs and his associates coordinated their efforts through the use of phone calls, text messages, and social media. The investigation revealed that Toombs obtained his heroin from a supplier in Paterson, New Jersey, and used Atlantic City associates to make frequent trips to Paterson to obtain his resupply of heroin.
Through the course of the investigation, the FBI determined that Toombs and his associates were distributing multiple “stamps,” or brands, of heroin, including “AK-47,” “Apple,” “Fortnite,” “Rolex,” “Frank Lucas,” “Bentley,” “Pandora,” and “9 ½.” Between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 21, 2019, drugs with these stamps have accounted for 48 deaths and 84 non-fatal overdoses in New Jersey, according to the N.J. State Police Office of Drug Monitoring and Analysis.
The count of conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin with which each defendant is charged is punishable by a minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison.
U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI’s Safe Streets South Jersey Violent Incident and Gang Task Force, Atlantic City Resident Agency, and FBI, Newark, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Ehrie; officers of the Atlantic City Police Department, under the direction of Chief White; the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Damon Tyner; the Atlantic County Sheriff’s Department, under the direction of Sheriff Eric Scheffler; and the Pleasantville Police Department, under the direction of Chief Sean Riggin, with the investigation leading to today’s charges. He also thanked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations; the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement Administration; and the N.J. State Police for their assistance.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Martha K. Nye of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Camden.
This case was conducted under the auspices of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply.
The charges and allegations contained in the complaints are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered 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: 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 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
NEWARK, N.J. – Two members of the Neighborhood Bloods street gang, which operated in Jersey City, New Jersey, have been indicted for the Jan. 16, 2017, murder of three Jersey City residents, including a pregnant 25-year-old woman, Attorney Craig Carpenito announced today.
Markell Brown, a/k/a “Sayboy,” 32, and Terence Shaw, a/k/a “Sweet Meat,” 32, both of Jersey City, are each charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, three counts of murder in aid of racketeering, three counts of discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and three counts of causing death through use of a firearm.
According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:
On Jan. 16, 2017, Brown and Shaw allegedly murdered a rival gang member with whom they had been feuding, as well as the gang member’s pregnant girlfriend and their own associate, who had accompanied them to commit the murders. Brown and Shaw used a stolen U-Haul truck and two-way walkie-talkie radios during the murders. They used their associate to obtain access to the rival gang member’s apartment. After entering that residence on Fulton Avenue in Jersey City shortly after 10:00 p.m., Brown and Shaw executed the rival gang member, shooting him in the back of the head, the left arm, and the right shoulder. They also shot the woman in the back of the head and the chest. As Brown and Shaw left, they shot their associate in the chest in order to eliminate the possibility that he would provide information to law enforcement.
Brown and Shaw each face a potential mandatory life sentences for each of the counts charging murder in aid of racketeering. For each count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, they face a potential mandatory consecutive sentences of 10 years in prison. The count of conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The counts of causing death through use of a firearm each carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito credited the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, under the direction of Prosecutor Esther Suarez, and the Jersey City Police Department, under the direction of Public Safety Director James Shea, as well as special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge George M. Crouch Jr. in Newark, with the investigation leading to the charges.
This investigation was conducted as part of the Jersey City Violent Crime Initiative (VCI). The VCI was formed in 2018 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Jersey City Police Department, for the sole purpose of combatting violent crime in and around Jersey City. As part of this partnership, federal, state, county, and city agencies collaborate to strategize and prioritize the prosecution of violent offenders who endanger the community. The VCI is composed of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, the ATF, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) New Jersey Division, the U.S. Marshals, the Jersey City Police Department, the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, the Hudson County Sheriff’s Office, New Jersey State Parole Board, the Hudson County Jail, and the New Jersey State Police Regional Operations and Intelligence Center/Real Time Crime Center.
The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace Latzer, Acting Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Violent Crime Unit in Newark.
The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Two Washington, D.C. men pleaded guilty this week to conspiring to pass counterfeit currency.
According to court documents, between June 2017 and January 2019, Markee Alexander Brown, 27, and Joseph Andre Robinson, 24, conspired with one another to pass counterfeit $100 and $50 U.S. banknotes to purchase goods and to receive change in genuine U.S. currency from businesses and restaurants throughout the greater metropolitan Washington, D.C. area. Approximately 30 of these counterfeit passes were reported and captured by surveillance footage, and the U.S. Secret Service has collected thousands of dollars in counterfeit federal reserve notes connected to this conspiracy.
Brown and Robinson pleaded guilty to conspiring to pass counterfeit currency and face a maximum penalty of five years in prison when sentenced on August 23. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
G. Zachary Terwilliger, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Brian J. Ebert, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Secret Service’s Washington Field Office, made the announcement after U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga accepted the pleas. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas U. Murphy II and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Jones are prosecuting the case.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:19-cr-54.
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 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 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 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
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – A New York man was sentenced today two consecutive terms of life in prison for the murders of two men in Newport News in June and July 2014.
According to court documents, Mark Anthony Skeete, a.k.a. MarkBrown, 33, was a member of the Nine Trey Gangsters, an offshoot of the California-based “Bloods” street gang. In June 2014, Skeete came to Virginia to facilitate and profit from the prostitution of adult women in the Richmond area. On June 28, 2014, Skeete and others traveled to Newport News to facilitate and profit from the prostitution of a woman from New York. When a client of the woman was unable to pay, Skeete shot and killed him to maintain his position as part of the Nine Trey enterprise.
After the June 2014 murder, Skeete and others fled to North Carolina. Skeete and others then returned to Newport News and killed another man on July 16, 2014 during a drug transaction. Skeete also robbed the victim of money, drugs, and a cell phone. Shortly thereafter, Skeete returned to Richmond. On September 17, 2014, Skeete, a previously convicted felon, possessed a firearm in Richmond that was later forensically linked to the Newport News murders. Cartridge casings recovered from the June and July 2014 murder scenes revealed that the same Ruger .45 caliber firearm recovered on September 17, 2014 in Richmond was the weapon used in both of those murders.
Following the two murders in this case, Skeete shot and killed two other individuals in Richmond in September 2014. He was sentenced in state court to 75 years in prison for those murders.
Jessica D. Aber, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Brian Dugan, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge David J. Novak.
This investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Peninsula Safe Streets Task Force, a partnership that includes the FBI, Virginia State Police, Hampton Police Division, James City County Police Department, and Newport News Police Department. This task force investigates the most violent criminal enterprises operating on the Virginia Peninsula. Tips regarding gang activity and other violent crimes in the region can be reported to the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI or www.fbi.gov/tips.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Lisa McKeel and Brian Samuels and former Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney Howard J. Zlotnick prosecuted the case.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 4:19-cr-62.
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – A New York man pleaded guilty yesterday to the murders of two men in Newport News in June and July 2014.
According to court documents, Mark Anthony Skeete, a.k.a. MarkBrown, 33, was a member of the Nine Trey Gangsters, an offshoot of the California-based “Bloods” street gang. In June 2014, Skeete came to Virginia to assist in the prostitution of adult women in the Richmond area. On June 28, 2014, Skeete and others traveled to Newport News to assist in the prostitution of a female from New York. When a client was unable to pay, Skeete shot and killed him to maintain his position as part of the Nine Trey enterprise.
After the June 2014 murder, Skeete and others fled to North Carolina. Skeete and others then returned to Newport News and killed another man on July 16, 2014 during a drug transaction. Skeete also robbed the victim of money, drugs, and a cell phone. Shortly thereafter, Skeete returned to Richmond. On September 17, 2014, Skeete, a previously convicted felon, possessed a firearm in Richmond that was later forensically linked to the Newport News murders. Cartridge casings recovered from the June and July 2014 murder scenes revealed that the same Ruger .45 caliber firearm recovered on September 17, 2014 in Richmond was the weapon used in both of those murders.
Skeete is scheduled to be sentenced on December 1. He faces a maximum sentence of up to two life terms in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Raj Parekh, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Brian Dugan, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office, made the announcement after U.S. District Judge David J. Novak accepted the plea.
This investigation was conducted by the FBI’s Peninsula Safe Streets Task Force, a partnership that includes the FBI, Virginia State Police, Hampton Police Division, James City County Police Department, and Newport News Police Department. This task force investigates the most violent criminal enterprises operating on the Virginia Peninsula. Tips regarding gang activity and other violent crimes in the region can be reported to the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI or www.fbi.gov/tips.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Howard J. Zlotnick, Lisa McKeel, and Brian Samuels are prosecuting the case.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 4:19-cr-62.
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. – Two local men and a third from Massachusetts have been indicted by a federal grand jury for a 2009 robbery and murder in Newport News.
According to the indictment that was unsealed today, Bryan Brown, 30, of Newport News, Mark Wallace, 36, of Williamsburg, and Joseph Benson, 35, of Dorchester, Mass., shot and killed Louis Joseph on March 13, 2009, in Newport News.
Each defendant faces a maximum penalty of life in prison, if convicted. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Dana J. Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Kenneth A. Blanco, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, made the announcement after the indictment was unsealed. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Howard J. Zlotnick and Lisa R. McKeel, and Trial Attorney Joseph K. Wheatley from the Organized Crime and Gang Section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, are prosecuting the case.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information is located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 4:17-cr-45.
An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.
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
Three medical professionals who helped a local hospice agency scam Medicare have been convicted of healthcare fraud, announced Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Prerak Shah.
On Monday, a federal jury found Novus Health Services Medical Directors Dr. Mark Gibbs and Dr. Laila Hirjee, along with Novus RN Tammie Little, guilty of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud.
Additionally, the jury found Dr. Gibbs guilty of two counts of healthcare fraud and one count of obstruction of justice, Dr. Hirjee guilty of three counts of healthcare fraud and one Title 21 drug offense, and Ms. Little guilty of three counts of healthcare fraud. (Dr. Gibbs was acquitted of one of the three health care fraud counts brought by the government.)
According to evidence presented at trial, the defendants helped Novus CEO Bradley Harris defraud Medicare by submitting materially false claims for hospice services, providing kickbacks for referrals, violating HIPAA to recruit beneficiaries, and destroying documents to conceal the fraud from Medicare.
Mr. Harris, who pleaded guilty prior to trial, testified against his former employees.
He told the jury that instead of relying on the expertise of licensed medical professions, he and Novus nurses, including Ms. Little, determined which patients would be admitted to or discharged from hospice care, as well as which drugs and dosages they would receive.
They relied upon Novus doctors, including Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Hirjee, to certify that they had examined these patients face-to-face, when no such examinations had occurred, Mr. Harris testified.
Witnesses also testified that Dr. Hirjee and Dr. Gibbs engaged in the prescription of Schedule II controlled substances, such as morphine and hydromorphone, by pre-signing blank C2 prescriptions and giving those to Brad Harris and others at Novus to let them prescribe controlled substances without any physician oversight.
As Director of Operations Melanie Murphey testified on day five of trial, “I was the doctor.”
Mr. Harris and the nurses used pre-signed prescription pads, prepared by Dr. Gibbs, Dr. Hirjee, and other Novus doctors, to dispense medications like morphine to patients. Mr. Harris paid also Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Hirjee kickbacks – disguised as medical directory salaries – to induce them to refer patients to his facilities.
When Medicare suspended payment to Novus over concerns about billing, Mr. Harris, Dr. Gibbs, and others moved patients and employees to a new hospice company and continued to bill Medicare for hospice services.
In total, Medicare and Medicaid paid the Novus entities approximately $40 million dollars for hospice services before the companies were shut down.
“With today’s guilty verdicts, we are one step closer to bringing this sordid case to a close,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Shah. “These medical professionals behaved unconscionably, allowing Mr. Harris – an accountant – to dictate end-of-life care for suffering patients. The Northern District of Texas will not stand for this sort of misconduct.”
Dr. Hirjee now faces up to 60 years in federal prison, Dr. Gibbs faces up to 35 years, and Ms. Little faces up to 40 years.
Twelve of their codefendants – Novus CEO Brad Harris, his wife, Novus Vice President of Patient Services Amy Harris, Novus Director of Operations Melanie Murphy, Novus Medical Director Charles Leach, Novus Medical Director Reziuddin Siddique, Novus Medical Director Syed Aziz, Novus Vice President of Marketing Samuel Anderson, Novus Director of Marketing Slade Brown, Novus RN Jessica Love, Novus triage RN Patricia Armstrong, Novus LVN Taryn Stewart, and Ali Rizvi, the owner of a separate physician home visit company – pleaded guilty prior to trial and are facing between two and 14 years in federal prison.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Dallas Field Office, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Donna Strittmatter Max, Marty Basu, and Chad Meacham are prosecuting the case with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen Gilstrap, Gail Hayworth, and Brian McKay. Chief U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn presided over the trial.
Three medical professionals who helped a local hospice agency scam Medicare have been convicted of healthcare fraud, announced Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Prerak Shah.
On Monday, a federal jury found Novus Health Services Medical Directors Dr. Mark E. Gibbs and Dr. Laila Hirjee, along with Novus RN Tammie Little, guilty of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud.
Additionally, the jury found Dr. Gibbs guilty of two counts of healthcare fraud and one count of obstruction of justice, Dr. Hirjee guilty of three counts of healthcare fraud and one Title 21 drug offense, and Ms. Little guilty of three counts of healthcare fraud. (Dr. Gibbs was acquitted of one of the three health care fraud counts brought by the government.)
According to evidence presented at trial, the defendants helped Novus CEO Bradley Harris defraud Medicare by submitting materially false claims for hospice services, providing kickbacks for referrals, violating HIPAA to recruit beneficiaries, and destroying documents to conceal the fraud from Medicare.
Mr. Harris, who pleaded guilty prior to trial, testified against his former employees.
He told the jury that instead of relying on the expertise of licensed medical professions, he and Novus nurses, including Ms. Little, determined which patients would be admitted to or discharged from hospice care, as well as which drugs and dosages they would receive.
They relied upon Novus doctors, including Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Hirjee, to certify that they had examined these patients face-to-face, when no such examinations had occurred, Mr. Harris testified.
Witnesses also testified that Dr. Hirjee and Dr. Gibbs engaged in the prescription of Schedule II controlled substances, such as morphine and hydromorphone, by pre-signing blank C2 prescriptions and giving those to Brad Harris and others at Novus to let them prescribe controlled substances without any physician oversight.
As Director of Operations Melanie Murphey testified on day five of trial, “I was the doctor.”
Mr. Harris and the nurses used pre-signed prescription pads, prepared by Dr. Gibbs, Dr. Hirjee, and other Novus doctors, to dispense medications like morphine to patients. Mr. Harris paid also Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Hirjee kickbacks – disguised as medical directory salaries – to induce them to refer patients to his facilities.
When Medicare suspended payment to Novus over concerns about billing, Mr. Harris, Dr. Gibbs, and others moved patients and employees to a new hospice company and continued to bill Medicare for hospice services.
In total, Medicare and Medicaid paid the Novus entities approximately $40 million dollars for hospice services before the companies were shut down.
“With today’s guilty verdicts, we are one step closer to bringing this sordid case to a close,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Shah. “These medical professionals behaved unconscionably, allowing Mr. Harris – an accountant – to dictate end-of-life care for suffering patients. The Northern District of Texas will not stand for this sort of misconduct.”
Dr. Hirjee now faces up to 60 years in federal prison, Dr. Gibbs faces up to 35 years, and Ms. Little faces up to 40 years.
Twelve of their codefendants – Novus CEO Brad Harris, his wife, Novus Vice President of Patient Services Amy Harris, Novus Director of Operations Melanie Murphy, Novus Medical Director Charles Leach, Novus Medical Director Reziuddin Siddique (deceased), Novus Medical Director Syed Aziz, Novus Vice President of Marketing Samuel Anderson, Novus Director of Marketing Slade Brown, Novus RN Jessica Love, Novus triage RN Patricia Armstrong, Novus LVN Taryn Stewart, and Ali Rizvi, the owner of a separate physician home visit company – pleaded guilty to various offenses prior to trial. Dr. Aziz has been sentenced to probation, and the remaining defendants are facing between two and 14 years in federal prison.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Dallas Field Office, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Donna Strittmatter Max, Marty Basu, and Chad Meacham are prosecuting the case with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen Gilstrap, Gail Hayworth, and Brian McKay. Chief U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn presided over the trial.
Two doctors who helped a local hospice agency scam Medicare were sentenced today to a combined 23 years in prison for healthcare fraud, announced U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Chad E. Meacham.
In May, a federal jury found Novus Health Services Medical Directors Dr. Mark E. Gibbs and Dr. Laila Hirjee, along with Novus RN Tammie Little, guilty of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and other charges. Today, Chief U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn sentenced Dr. Gibbs to 13 years in federal prison and ordered him to pay $27,978,903 in restitution; she sentenced Dr. Hirjee to 10 years in federal prison and ordered her to pay $16,253,281 in restitution. The judge also sentenced Ms. Little to 33 months in federal prison.
According to evidence presented at trial, the defendants helped Novus CEO Bradley Harris defraud Medicare by, among other things, illegally admitting patients who were not appropriate for hospice and submitting materially false claims for hospice services.
Mr. Harris, who pleaded guilty prior to trial, testified against his former employees.
He told the jury that instead of relying on the expertise of licensed medical professions, he and Novus nurses determined which patients would be admitted to or discharged from hospice care, as well as which drugs and dosages they would receive.
They relied upon Novus doctors, including Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Hirjee, to certify that they had examined these patients face-to-face, when no such examinations had occurred, Mr. Harris testified.
Witnesses also testified that Dr. Hirjee and Dr. Gibbs engaged in the prescription of Schedule II controlled substances, such as morphine, hydromorphone, and fentanyl, by pre-signing blank C2 prescriptions and giving those to Brad Harris and others at Novus to let them prescribe controlled substances without any physician oversight.
As Director of Operations Melanie Murphey testified on day five of trial, “I was the doctor.”
Mr. Harris and the nurses used pre-signed prescription pads, prepared by Dr. Gibbs, Dr. Hirjee, and other Novus doctors, to dispense medications like morphine to patients. When Medicare suspended payment to Novus over concerns about billing, Mr. Harris, Dr. Gibbs, and others moved patients and employees to a new hospice company and continued to bill Medicare for hospice services.
In total, Medicare and Medicaid paid the Novus entities approximately $40 million dollars for hospice services before the companies were shut down.
“These doctors allowed Bradley Harris – an accountant with no medical expertise – to dispense controlled substances like candy, with little to no medical oversight,” said U.S. Attorney Chad Meacham. “They claimed to have had hands-on experience with hospice patients, when in fact, they’d entrusted life-or-death medical decisions to untrained businesspeople. We are satisfied to know they will spend the next decade behind bars.”
“The defendants violated their Hippocratic Oath as doctors and instead focused on lining their pockets at the expense of patient safety. This case highlights the importance of thoroughly investigating any complaint of healthcare fraud,” said FBI Dallas Special Agent in Charge Matthew DeSarno. “We encourage the public to help us identify, investigate, and prosecute this crime. If you suspect health care fraud, report it to the FBI at tips.fbi.gov, 1-800-CALL-FBI, or contact your health insurance provider.”
Several of their codefendants – Novus CEO Brad Harris, his wife, Novus Vice President of Patient Services Amy Harris, Novus Director of Operations Melanie Murphy, Novus Medical Director Charles Leach, Novus Medical Director Reziuddin Siddique (deceased), Novus Vice President of Marketing Samuel Anderson, Novus Director of Marketing Slade Brown, Novus RN Jessica Love, Novus triage RN Patricia Armstrong, Novus LVN Taryn Stewart, and Ali Rizvi, the owner of a separate physician home visit company – pleaded guilty to various offenses prior to trial. Love was sentenced 102 months, Stuart was sentenced to 96 months, Armstrong was sentenced to 84 months, Dr. Leach was sentenced to 57 months, and Anderson was sentenced to 33 months. The remaining defendants are facing statutory maximums of between two and 14 years in federal prison.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Dallas Field Office, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Donna Strittmatter Max and Marty Basu are prosecuting the case with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen Gilstrap, Gail Hayworth, and Brian McKay.
Thirteen defendants involved in the $27 million Novus healthcare fraud have been sentenced to a combined 84 years in federal prison, announced U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Chad E. Meacham.
According to plea papers and evidence presented to a jury, Novus Health Services, a Dallas-based hospice agency, defrauded Medicare by submitting materially false claims for hospice services, providing kickbacks for referrals, and violating HIPAA to recruit beneficiaries. Novus employees also dispensed Schedule II controlled substances to patients without the guidance of medical professionals and moved patients to a new hospice company in order to avoid a Medicare suspension.
CEO Bradley J. Harris eventually admitted to the fraud and testified against two physicians who elected to proceed to trial.
He told the jury that instead of relying on the expertise of licensed medical professionals, he and Novus’ nurses determined which medications and dosages patients would receive, dispensing drugs like morphine and hydrocodone using pre-signed prescription pads. Novus medical directors, including Dr. Mark Gibbs and Dr. Laila Hirjee, were supposed to oversee the care of these patients and examine patients face-to-face to certify that they were terminally ill. Often, however, the medical directors signed off on patient care plans without properly reviewing patients files and falsely certified they had completed in-person examinations when they had not.
As Director of Operations Melanie Murphey testified at trial, “I was the doctor.”
Mr. Harris and the nurses also determined which patients would be admitted to or discharged from hospice care without any physician involvement. Mr. Harris also admitted to paying Novus physicians kickbacks – disguised as medical director salaries – to induce them to refer patients to Novus facilities.
When Mr. Harris realized he could avoid exceeding Medicare’s aggregate hospice cap by enrolling an influx of first-time hospice patients, he negotiated an agreement with a company called Express Medical that allowed him to access potential patients confidential medical information in return for using Express Medical for laboratory tests and home health visits. Novus staff attempted to recruit Express Medical patients for Novus services, regardless of their eligibility.
Those convicted in the scheme include:
Sam Anderson, Novus VP of Marketing, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and was sentenced to 33 months in federal prison
Patricia Armstrong, Novus triage nurse, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and was sentenced to 84 months in federal prison
Slade Brown, Novus Director of Marketing, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and was sentenced to 48 months in federal prison
Dr. Mark Gibbs, Novus Medical Director, was convicted at trial of one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, two counts of healthcare fraud, and one count conspiracy to obstruct justice and was sentenced to 156 months in federal prison
Amy Harris, Novus VP of Patient Services and wife of Bradley Harris, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and was sentenced to 38 months in federal prison
Bradley Harris, Novus CEO, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and one count of healthcare fraud and aiding and abetting and was sentenced to 159 months in federal prison
Dr. Laila Hirjee, Novus Medical Director, was convicted at trial of one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud, three counts of healthcare fraud and one count of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 120 months in federal prison
Dr. Charles Leach, Novus Medical Director, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison
Tammie Little, Novus Registered Nurse, was convicted at trial of one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and three counts of healthcare fraud and aiding and abetting and was sentenced to 33 months in federal prison
Jessica Love, Novus Registered Nurse, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and was sentenced to 102 months in federal prison
Melanie Murphey, Novus Director of Operations, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and was sentenced to 66 months in federal prison
Ali Rizvi, Express Medical owner, pleaded guilty to one count of wrongful use of individually identifiable heath information and was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison
Taryn Stuart, Novus Licensed Vocational Nurse, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and was sentenced to 96 months in federal prison
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Dallas Field Office, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG), and the Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Marty Basu and Donna Strittmatter Max prosecuted the case along with U.S. Attorney Chad Meacham.
BUFFALO, N.Y.-U.S. Attorney Trini E. Ross announced today that Kingsley Brown, 22, of North Tonawanda, NY, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles M. Kruly, who is handling the case, stated that between August 2022, and July 2023, Brown, along with co-defendant Cross Malik Williams, purchased approximately 570 stolen bank cards from various online marketplaces. Williams and Brown then used a card-making device to load the stolen banking card information onto blank plastic bank cards with magnetic strips, which allowed purchases to be made using the victims’ funds from the victims’ bank accounts. Williams and Brown used, or allowed others to use, the stolen bank card information to purchase gas for other individuals. The gas customers would then pay Williams and/or Brown an amount of money less than the cost of the gas. As part of his plea agreement, Brown agreed that he was responsible for $192,673 of total loss.
Cross Malik Williams was previously convicted and is awaiting sentencing.
The plea is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Matthew Miraglia.
Sentencing is scheduled for December 11, 2024, before Judge Sinatra.
BUFFALO, N.Y.-U.S. Attorney Trini E. Ross announced today that Cross Malik Williams, 25, of Cheektowaga, NY, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles M. Kruly, who is handling the case, stated that between August 2022, and July 2023, Williams, along with co-defendant Kingsley Brown, purchased approximately 570 stolen bank cards from various online marketplaces. Williams and Brown then used a card-making device to load the stolen banking card information onto blank plastic bank cards with magnetic strips, which allowed purchases to be made using the victims’ funds from the victims’ bank accounts. Williams and Brown used, or allowed others to use, the stolen bank card information to purchase gas for other individuals. The gas customers would then pay Williams and/or Brown an amount of money less than the cost of the gas. As part of his plea agreement, Williams agreed that he was responsible for between $250,000 and $550,000 of total loss.
Charges remain pending against Kingsley Brown.
The plea is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge Matthew Miraglia.
Sentencing is scheduled for July 25, 2024, before Judge Sinatra.