Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: 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
HOUSTON – Two Houston residents are set to appear on allegations in an $8.7 million fraud scheme connected to a home health company they jointly owned and operated, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.
Caroline Zamora, 63, and Rommel Zamora, 59, are set to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison at 2 p.m.
The indictment, returned March 1, alleges the Zamoras owned and operated 24/7 Stat Care Home Health Services Inc. aka Parkway Healthcare Services. From approximately February 7, 2014 through November 9, 2018, the couple allegedly conspired to pay illegal cash kickbacks to Medicare patients to sign up for home health services with Parkway. The Zamoras are also alleged to have conspired to pay kickbacks to doctors to certify and refer patients for home health who did not qualify.
The indictment further alleges the Zamoras fraudulently billed Medicare for home health services that were not provided or for patients who did not qualify for such services. Parkway billed Medicare $8.7M and was paid $6.7M, according to the indictment.
If convicted, both face up to 10 years in prison on each count of health care fraud in addition to another five years for the conspiracy. All counts also carry as possible punishment a maximum $250,000 fine.
The Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General and the FBI conducted the investigation. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Abdul Farukhi is prosecuting the case.
An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.
WASHINGTON – Harrison Lee, 43, of Northeast Washington D.C., was sentenced today to 210 months in prison for sex trafficking a 17-year-old girl for his own financial benefit, announced U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves and FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge David Geist of the Washington Field Office Criminal and Cyber Division.
Lee pleaded guilty on February 8, 2024, to sex trafficking of a minor before U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden. In addition to the 210-month prison sentence, Judge McFadden ordered Lee to serve 15 years of supervised release and pay $70,000 in restitution.
According to court documents, in December 2015, Lee began advertising the minor for commercial sex on Backpage.com, a now-defunct website that had an escorts-for-hire section. Lee placed ads with headings such as “Young Exotic MIXED GIRL” on a near-daily basis from December 18, 2015, to January 24, 2016. The advertisements posted by Lee contained nude and sexually explicit images of the minor that constituted child sexual abuse material.
Lee transported the minor to hotels in the Washington D.C. area as well as to other states up and down the eastern seaboard, including New Jersey and Georgia. He took all the money that the minor earned, rendering her completely dependent on him.
After the victim turned 18, Lee continued to exploit her in commercial sex off and on for years, until the time of his arrest on July 20, 2023. Lee received at least $70,000 from her commercial sex work.
This case was investigated by the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force. It is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Jessica Arco from the Department of Justice’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit and Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Burrell from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
This case was brought as part of the Department of Justice's Project Safe Childhood initiative. In February 2006, the Attorney General created Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative designed to protect children from online exploitation and abuse. Led by the U.S. Attorney's Offices, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
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
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
TUCSON, Ariz. – Mariana Garcia-Tapia, 32, of Tucson, was sentenced last week by United States District Judge Scott H. Rash to 60 months in prison. Garcia-Tapia pleaded guilty on July 10, 2024, to Conspiracy to Transport Illegal Aliens for Profit Placing in Jeopardy the Life of Any Person. She was given an additional 12 months in prison to run consecutive to her sentence for violating the conditions of her supervised release in a separate case (CR-22-00816-002-PHX-DJH).On February 2, 2024, near Naco, Arizona, a United States Border Patrol camera operator observed four suspected undocumented noncitizens approach a 2011 Volkswagen Routan. Another Border Patrol agent responded and observed the group get into the Routan. When Border Patrol stopped the vehicle, they found that it was only occupied by the driver and co-defendant, Sharnesia Latrice Cooley, her two-year-old minor son and the defendant, Garcia-Tapia. A search of the area revealed four injured people strewn along the road just east of the San Pedro Bridge. Their injuries were consistent with having jumped from a moving vehicle. They were transported to the hospital with serious head trauma among other injuries, and it was determined that all four were illegally present within the United States. One of the undocumented noncitizens admitted that they had made arrangements to be smuggled into the United States for a sum of money.The co-defendant, Cooley, was found guilty by way of jury trial. She is currently set for sentencing on January 16, 2025, before Judge Rash.Customs and Border Protection’s United States Border Patrol conducted the investigation in this case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alicia Renee Quezada and Caroline Allen, District of Arizona, Tucson, handled the prosecution. CASE NUMBER: CR 24-00910-2-TUC-SHR RELEASE NUMBER: 2024-161_Garcia-Tapia# # #For more information on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/ Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, on X @USAO_AZ for the latest news.
TUCSON, Ariz. – Sharnesia Latrice Cooley, 31, of Tucson, was sentenced last week by United States District Judge Scott H. Rash to 60 months in prison for Conspiracy to Transport Illegal Aliens for Profit and Transporting Illegal Aliens for Profit. Cooley was found guilty at trial on November 1, 2024.On February 2, 2024, near Naco, a United States Border Patrol camera operator observed four suspected undocumented noncitizens approach a 2011 Volkswagen Routan. Another Border Patrol agent responded and observed the group get into the Routan. When Border Patrol was able to stop the vehicle, they found that it was only occupied by Cooley, who was the driver, her two-year-old minor son and a co-defendant, Mariana Garcia-Tapia. A search of the area revealed four seriously injured people strewn along the road just east of the San Pedro Bridge. Their injuries were consistent with having jumped from a moving vehicle. It was determined that all four were illegally present within the United States. One of the undocumented noncitizens admitted that they made arrangements to be smuggled into the United States for a sum of money. All four were transported to the hospital with injuries including serious head trauma.The co-defendant, Garcia-Tapia, pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Transport Illegal Aliens for Profit Placing in Jeopardy the Life of Any Person on July 10, 2024. She was sentenced on November 15, 2024, to 60 months in prison by Judge Rash with an additional 12 months in prison to run consecutive to her sentence for violating the conditions of her supervised release in a separate case (CR-22-00816-002-PHX-DJH).Customs and Border Protection’s United States Border Patrol conducted the investigation in this case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alicia Renee Quezada and Caroline Allen, District of Arizona, Tucson, handled the prosecution. CASE NUMBER: CR 24-00910-TUC-SHR RELEASE NUMBER: 2025-009_Cooley# # #For more information on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/ Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, on X @USAO_AZ for the latest news.
TUCSON, Ariz. – Jesus Rene Villa, 31, of Tucson, was sentenced on March 25, 2025, by United States District Judge Raner C. Collins to 36 months in prison. Villa pleaded guilty to Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon on January 8, 2025.On March 1, 2024, Tucson Police Department officers searched Villa’s vehicle after arresting him for previously fleeing from law enforcement. During the search, officers located a loaded firearm in a black duffel bag on the back seat. An investigation revealed that Villa was a four-time convicted felon. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) then assumed responsibility for the case in collaboration with the Tucson Police Department as part of the National Public Safety Partnership (PSP).The National PSP was established by the U.S. Department of Justice to provide an innovative framework to enhance federal support of state, local, and tribal law enforcement and prosecution authorities in enhancing public safety. PSP began as a pilot program, the Violence Reduction Network, in 2014 and is designed to promote interagency coordination by leveraging specialized law enforcement expertise with dedicated prosecutorial resources to promote public and community safety. PSP serves as a DOJ-wide program that enables participating sites to consult with and receive expedited, coordinated training and technical assistance, and an array of resources from DOJ to enhance local public safety strategies. This model enables DOJ to provide jurisdictions of different sizes and diverse needs with data-driven, evidence-based strategies tailored to the unique local needs of participating cities to build their capacities to address violent crime challenges. PSP has engaged with more than 60 sites since the program’s inception.The ATF and Tucson Police Department conducted the investigation in this case. Assistant U.S. Attorney, Caroline Allen, District of Arizona, Tucson, handled the prosecution.CASE NUMBER: CR-24-01319-TUC-RCC RELEASE NUMBER: 2025-049_Villa# # #For more information on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, on Twitter @USAO_AZ for the latest news.
TUCSON, Ariz. – Last week, a federal grand jury indicted Santiago Luis Valencia, Jr., 34, of Tucson, on one count of Second Degree Murder. Valencia is an enrolled member of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe.
It is alleged that on June 15, 2024, the victim and Valencia engaged in a verbal altercation that later turned physical. According to witnesses, Valencia was the initial aggressor and assaulted the victim by striking the back of the victim’s head against a windowsill on the exterior of the residence where the incident occurred. The victim died the following day as a result of the injuries sustained during the fight.
Second Degree Murder carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and five years of supervised release.
An indictment is simply a method by which a person is charged with criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. An individual is presumed innocent until evidence is presented to a jury that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation in this case. Assistant United States Attorneys Nathaniel J. Walters and Caroline Allen, District of Arizona, Tucson, are handling the prosecution.
CASE NUMBER: CR-24-04265-TUC-JGZ
RELEASE NUMBER: 2024-096_Valencia
# # #
For more information on the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/
Follow the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, on X @USAO_AZ for the latest news.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total 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
Senior Mgt. Counsel and Law Enforcement Coordinator Cindy Cipriani (619) 546-9608
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 15, 2020
SAN DIEGO – U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer today announced the 2020 recipients of the third annual “Excellence in the Pursuit of Justice” awards, which honor 77 federal, state and local law enforcement officers for their work on cases in San Diego and Imperial counties.
Recipients were selected in a number of categories, including Lifetime Achievement, Exceptional Service, Cases of the Year, Investigations of the Year, Community Impact, and Collaboration. The Lifetime Achievement Award was given to U.S. Border Patrol Assistant Chief Chancy L. Arnold, the longest-serving Border Patrol agent in the United States.
“I greatly respect the crime-solving and life-saving efforts of the incredible law enforcement community in San Diego and Imperial counties,” said U.S. Attorney Brewer. “These awards celebrate the diligence, courage and extraordinary character of these recipients, all of whom were nominated by prosecutors in this office. During this unprecedented time of global pandemic, our award ceremony will not be held in person this year. I regret that I cannot express my gratitude to these deserving honorees directly – but I am giving them a virtual standing ovation.” Some of the recipients honored for “Cases of the Year” include U.S. Border Patrol agents who were confronted by an armed assailant on November 26, 2018. According to court records, Hector Rodriguez-Chavez pointed a loaded gun at one of the agents, and in a split-second decision, the agent grabbed Chavez's weapon and wrestled it out of his hands. Another agent, Patrick Powers, assisted by deploying his taser, and the agents were able to arrest Rodriguez-Chavez.
FBI agents, including Brian Loveland, were assigned the investigation. Hector Rodriguez-Chavez pleaded guilty in September 2019 and was sentenced in February 2020 in federal court to 141 months in prison.
The nomination said: “The agents’ quick, disciplined action at a critical moment avoided bloodshed and saved both their own and the defendant's lives. This was followed by a thorough investigation, which delivered a just result and reflected law enforcement at its professional best.”
The awards are presented to agents and officers who demonstrated creativity, initiative, and persistence to achieve justice in difficult cases, including major opioid and methamphetamine investigations, gun prosecutions, immigration fraud and even action on the high seas chasing drug traffickers.
“Each one of these award recipients has shown an exceptional dedication to the pursuit of justice for victims and to the safety of our community, and for that I am extremely proud and grateful,” Brewer said. “These are demanding and dangerous jobs that all too often go unappreciated. Agents and officers put their lives on the line because they want to make a difference. We need to give them support and sincere appreciation for their service and sacrifice.”
Exceptional Service awards were given to FBI Agent Bradlee Godshall for investigation of environmental crimes; Tom Eilers, Director, Imperial County Law Enforcement Coordination Center, for his years of leadership; and Bryan Chehock of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration for his work to address the opioid epidemic.
Today also marks National Peace Officers Memorial Day, as well as the conclusion of National Police Week, which commemorate the courage and selflessness of law enforcement officers throughout our nation. Sadly, it is also a time to honor and pay tribute to the men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty last year and whose names were engraved this year on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is particularly appropriate to honor our fallen heroes now, given the significant risks our brave first responders face during this pandemic. As of May 7, 2020, the Fraternal Order of Police reports that 92 law enforcement officers have died from the Coronavirus nationwide.
For a list of award recipients, please see the table below.
2020 Excellence in the Pursuit of Justice Awards
Award Title
Awardee
Agency
Background
Case Name/ Investigation
Lifetime Service Award
Chancy L. Arnold
U.S. Border Patrol
Chancy has dedicated his entire career to public service, and he demonstrated a level of commitment and leadership that has made him a role model for many junior Border Patrol officers. Chancy, who has the distinction of being the longest serving Border Patrol agent in the United States, has increased the safety of our community and the security of our nation.
Exceptional Service Award
Bradlee Godshall
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Agent Godshall’s leadership led to the successful investigations of 53 defendants for environmental crimes, including seven cases that went to trial.
Exceptional Service Award
Tom Eilers
Imperial Valley LECC – HIDTA
Director Eilers effectively coordinated numerous state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies in the fight against narcotics trafficking and deadly fentanyl in Imperial Valley.
Exceptional Service Award
Bryan Chehock
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Chehock, a DEA attorney, crafted a successful argument that persuaded the court to allow DEA to get records of opioid prescriptions using administrative means rather than a search warrant. This information is essential in the fight against the opioid epidemic.
United States v. California; et al.
Case of the Year
Carlo Petersen
Aron Marcellus
Tyler Mower
Paul Hernandez
Alvaro Arauz
Juan Bribiesca
Ramon Villarreal
Homeland Security Inv. (HSI)
HSI
HSI
HSI
U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Border Patrol
U.S. Border Patrol
Thanks to this team’s successful and effective collaboration, immigration fraud was prevented and an infant is in safer hands.
U.S. v. Cesar Augusto Cordova-Montoya
19CR2358-LAB
Case of the Year
Brian Loveland
Patrick Powers
FBI
U.S. Border Patrol
The agents’ quick, disciplined action at a critical moment avoided bloodshed and saved both their own and the defendant's lives. This was followed by a thorough investigation, which delivered a just result and reflected law enforcement at its professional best.
U.S. v Hector Rodriguez-Chavez
Case of the Year
Michael Prince
Brendan P. Biamon
Travis C. Olmsted
Michael Boady
FBI
FBI
FBI
FBI
This team worked quickly to seek forfeiture orders that returned wrongfully wired funds to two universities and followed up to ensure that defendant was extradited to the United States.
U.S. v. Amil Raage
18CR4858-GPC
Case of the Year
David Senness
U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs-OIG
Agent Senness helped to protect contracts intended for veterans and created a model playbook for procurement fraud prosecutions.
U.S. v. Andrew Otero; et al
17CR-0879-JAH
15CV-0441-JAH
Case of the Year
Brandon L. Pullen
Jeffrey Wight
Adam W. Welzant
Caroline E. Miller
Jordan D. Groff
Scott D. Rogers
K. Channing Meyer
DEA
DEA
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Coast Guard
This team exemplified decisive action on the high seas and superb follow-up investigation. Due to the overwhelming evidence developed by this team, the government obtained guilty verdicts that resulted in some of the most significant sentences ever imposed in a Title 46 drug prosecution.
U.S. v. Cortez-Quinonez
18-cr-00421
Case of the Year
Jacob MacLeod
San Diego Sheriff’s Dept.
Detective MacLeod’s investigation led to a groundbreaking federal prosecution that secured justice for the devastated parents of an opioid overdose victim.
U.S. v. Maxwell Gaffney
17-cr-03330
Investigation of the Year
Jennifer Barnum
Roger Quintana
Janel Frith
Josh Watkins
HSI
U.S. CBP
HSI
HSI
The awardees’ investigation resulted in the seizure of drugs, dozens of weapons and $2 million in bulk currency; the successful prosecution of more than a dozen U.S. defendants; and charges against significant targets in Guatemala and Mexico.
US v Ipina, et al. 17cr0648
Award Title
Awardee
Agency
Background
Case Name/ Investigation
Investigation of the Year
Jason Hurley
Sandy Wasser
Ernst Jacobsen
Vivien Valderrama
DEA
DEA
DEA
IRS Criminal Investigations
The joint efforts of these agents removed hundreds of pounds of deadly drugs from the streets and resulted in indictments of dangerous drug traffickers in the Ever Perez-Cruz drug trafficking organization.
Investigation of the Year
Christian Sanders
Connell Ainslie
Zachary Leasure
HSI
HSI
DEA
This team’s investigation resulted in convictions of two high level traffickers and the seizure of 2800 kilograms of cocaine; 280 kilograms of methamphetamine; five firearms; and approximately $2 million in bulk currency.
18CR3737-WQH and 18CR3739-WQH
Investigation of the Year
Jeffrey Horn
John Philpott
Israel Garcia
Cathleen Beausang
FBI
S.D. County DA’s Office
Cal. Dept. of Insurance
FBI
The awardees exposed systemic corruption in the California Worker’s Compensation System. Ultimately, their hard work and tenacity led to the conviction of 18 individuals and 7 corporations and more than $2 million in fines.
Investigation of the Year
John Roberts
FBI
This award-winning investigation resulted in the convictions of four defendants who fraudulently obtained nearly $50 million from investors by pretending the money would be secured by high-end real estate.
Community Impact
Michael Wasser
DEA
Agent Wasser’s investigations and his ongoing training of numerous agents, task force officers and AUSAs resulted in a significant 40 percent increase of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) prosecutions in FY 2019.
Award Title
Awardee
Agency
Background
Case Name/ Investigation
Community Impact
Arnesha Bahn
ATF
Since May 2019, Agent Bahn personally swore out 40 federal PSN complaints, leading to safer and more secure neighborhoods in the Southern District.
Collaboration
Rick Aguilar
Lisa Amman
Pat Shadoan
Thomas Garrity
Michael Wasser
Sarah Duray
James Peters
Brian Hamilton
Edward Byrne
Brandon Merrick
Oscar Amando
San Diego Police Dept./DEA
Cal. DHCS/DEA Task Force
San Diego Police Department
HSI
DEA
DEA
DEA
FBI
HSI
DEA
San Diego Police. Dept.
Team 10 is a creative and effective collaboration that quickly takes deadly drugs off the streets, delivers justice, and never loses sight of the faces and stories of overdose victims.
Assistant U. S. Attorney Shane Harrigan (619) 546-6981 and Caroline Han (619) 546-6968
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – January 12, 2018
SAN DIEGO – Marchello Dsaun McCain, a convicted violent felon and the brother of Douglas McCain, the first known American who died fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), was sentenced in federal court today to 10 years in prison for his illegal possession of a cache of firearms and body armor and making false statements to federal agents involving international terrorism.
In a related case, the United States unsealed a two-count indictment charging Canadian national and former San Diego resident Abdullahi Ahmed Abdullahi with providing, and conspiring with Douglas and other individuals in the United States and Canada to provide, material support to terrorists engaged in violent activities in Syria, that is, a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country.
On March 9, 2014, Douglas McCain departed the U.S. and traveled to Syria where he joined and fought for ISIS. Approximately five months later, on or about August 25, 2014, Douglas McCain was killed in Syria fighting a battle against the Free Syrian Army. Following Douglas McCain’s death, Federal Bureau of Investigation Joint Terrorism Task Force (FBI-JTTF) agents interviewed Marchello McCain on several occasions from August 26, 2014 through January 23, 2015, when agents arrested him on federal firearms charges.
In January 2016, Marchello McCain, who was previously convicted of two felony crimes of violence in Minnesota involving assault with a firearm, pleaded guilty to five counts of possession of firearms and ammunition by a felon and one count of possession of body armor by a violent felon. Eight months later, in September 2016, he pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI-JTTF agents concerning his assistance to and knowledge of individuals providing material support (personnel and money) to individuals engaged in violent terrorist activities abroad and ISIS, including Douglas McCain and Abdullahi.
As part of his guilty pleas, McCain admitted that he made material false statements to the agents about his knowledge of the purpose of his brothers’ travel abroad and the methods of payment and source of monies to fund such travel. McCain acknowledged that he possessed over nine firearms, which included a stolen firearm and several semi-automatic 9 mm pistols, an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and an M1 Carbine .30 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a large capacity magazine. Marchello McCain also admitted that on February 13, 2014, approximately three weeks prior to Douglas McCain’s departure to fight in Syria, Marchello McCain went to a San Diego gun range with his brother and shot firearms, including an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun.
In imposing sentence, the court found that defendant’s obstructive conduct frustrated, delayed and thwarted the United States’ efforts to uncover the scope and membership of conspiracies to provide material support to terrorists and a foreign terrorist organization, ISIS.
“ISIS has brought the war on terror closer to home by directing and inspiring attacks in the U.S. and other countries, thereby putting American lives in danger,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Braverman. “By lying to federal agents, Marchello McCain delayed, frustrated and thwarted an investigation into a group that supplied U.S. and Canadian fighters to ISIS. We are committed to doing whatever it takes to protect American lives here and abroad.”
“Counterterrorism investigations are the highest priority investigations conducted by FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces,” commented FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric S. Birnbaum. “When someone misleads or obstructs counterterrorism investigations, this can adversely affect investigative activity in these important cases. Today's sentence will hold Mr. McCain accountable for his actions and dissuade others from lying to law enforcement agents concerning international terrorism matters.”
The defendant’s lies, including his false statements regarding the source and means of the financing of Douglas’ travel were not only intended to prevent the United States from finding out about the involvement of Abdullahi and others, but were also intended to prevent the discovery of his own involvement.
As detailed in the United States’ pleadings, the defendant’s involvement included: agreeing to travel to Syria and join his brother in violent jihadist activities; assisting Douglas and others in traveling to Syria to engage in violent jihadist activities by taking Douglas to a gun range to target shoot semi-automatic weapons; depositing cash into his wife’s bank account and letting Douglas use his wife’s credit card to purchase plane tickets to Turkey, a known entry point for foreign fighters seeking to enter Syria, and to make hotel reservations; regularly communicating with Douglas and other individuals regarding the financial and logistical needs of foreign fighters in Syria; wiring $800 to an ISIS operative in Turkey to support Douglas and/or others engaged in violent jihadist activities; and engaging in obstructive conduct to conceal the material support conspiracies.
Notwithstanding the obstructive conduct of McCain, the United States continued its investigation of the terrorist activities of Douglas McCain, Abdullahi and others. On March 10, 2017, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of California returned a two-count sealed indictment charging Abdullahi with conspiring to provide, and providing, material support to terrorists.
On September 15, 2017, pursuant to an extradition request by the United States, Canadian authorities arrested Abdullahi. Abdullahi is currently detained in Canadian custody without bail, pending an extradition hearing scheduled for May 31, 2018. On January 3, 2018, the Abdullahi indictment was unsealed. Abdullahi is also facing charges in Canada for a January 9, 2014 armed robbery of an Edmonton jewelry store.
The Abdullahi indictment alleges that from in or about August 2013 through in or about November 2014, Abdullahi conspired with Douglas and other individuals to provide personnel and money to individuals engaged in terrorist activities in Syria, including the killing, kidnapping and maiming of persons. The charged conspiracy alleges the participation and/or assistance of Abdullahi and approximately 14 other individuals and spans four countries, the United States, Canada, Turkey and Syria.
In preparation for their travels, Douglas and other members of the conspiracy practiced with firearms in San Diego and Canada. According to the indictment, Abdullahi, Douglas and others agreed to travel to Syria to support and join terrorist fighters engaged in terrorist activity, including the killing, kidnapping and maiming of persons.
In order to raise funds to support their efforts to support and join terrorist fighters in Syria, members of the conspiracy encouraged others to commit crimes against the “kuffar” (an Arabic term meaning infidels or non-believers), such as theft. In furtherance of this material support conspiracy, the indictment alleges that on January 9, 2014, prior to the travel of Douglas and another coconspirator, Abdullahi committed an armed robbery of a jewelry store in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, in order to finance the travel of Douglas and other members of the conspiracy to Syria. Thereafter, Abdullahi wired and caused others to wire money to other members of the conspiracy in the United States -- including approximately $3,100 to Douglas – in order to finance the travel of foreign fighters from North America to support and join terrorist fighters engaged in terrorist activities in Syria.
Additionally, members of the conspiracy, including Abdullahi, wired and caused money to be wired to third-party intermediaries in Gaziantep, Turkey (located approximately 40 miles from the Syrian border) for the purpose of supporting members of the conspiracy fighting and engaging in terrorist activity in Syria, including the killing, kidnapping, an maiming of persons.
The government alleges that because of the efforts of Abdullahi and other coconspirators, beginning in November 2013 through November 2014, five coconspirators, including Douglas McCain, traveled from North America to Syria, via Turkey, and acted as foreign fighters in Syria engaging in terrorist activity in Syria, including the murder of persons. Douglas McCain was killed in battle fighting for ISIS in August 2014. The remaining four coconspirators were all killed in Syria in mid-November 2014.
DEFENDANT Criminal Case No. 15CR0174-W
Marchello Dsaun McCain Age 35 San Diego, California
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
False Statements Involving International Terrorism – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 1001(a)(2)
Maximum penalty: 8 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine (per count)
Felon in Possession of Firearms and Ammunition – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 922(g)(1)
Maximum penalty: 10 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine.
Felon in Possession of Body Armor by a Violent Felon – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 931
Maximum penalty: 3 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine.
DEFENDANT Criminal Case No. 17CR0622-W
Abdullahi Ahmed Abdullahi Age 33 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 2339A(a)
Maximum penalty: 8 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine (per count)
Providing Material Support to Terrorists – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 2339A(a)
Maximum penalty: 15 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine.
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
San Diego Joint Terrorism Task Force
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Air Marshal Service
Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Border Patrol
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Shane Harrigan (619) 546-6981, Caroline Han (619) 546-6968 and Peter Ko (619) 546-7359
SAN DIEGO – John T. Earnest of Rancho Peñasquitos was indicted by a federal grand jury this morning on civil rights, hate crime, and firearm charges in connection with the murder of one person and the attempted murder of 53 others at the Chabad of Poway Synagogue on April 27 and the March 24 arson of the Dar-ul-Arqam Mosque in Escondido.
The original complaint filed on May 7 charged Earnest with 54 counts of obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs using a dangerous weapon, resulting in death, bodily injury, and attempts to kill; 54 counts of violating the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act; and one count of damage to religious property by use of fire in relation to the attempted arson of the mosque. The indictment adds four charges for discharging a firearm during crimes of violence.
Earnest is scheduled to be arraigned on the indictment June 4, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg.
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on April 27, Earnest drove to the Chabad of Poway Synagogue, where members of the congregation were gathered to engage in religious worship celebrating Shabbat and the last day of Passover. Earnest entered the building armed with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle that was fully loaded with a 10-round magazine. He wore a chest rig that contained five additional magazines, each loaded with 10 rounds of ammunition.
The affidavit alleges that while inside the Poway Synagogue, Earnest opened fire, killing one person and injuring three other members of the congregation, including a juvenile. During a pause when Earnest unsuccessfully attempted to reload his firearm, several congregant members, including an off-duty Border Patrol Agent, chased Earnest, and Earnest fled from the Synagogue. Earnest was subsequently apprehended by law enforcement authorities who discovered the AR-15 and additional magazines of ammunition in his car.
The affidavit further alleges that after the shooting, law enforcement investigators found a manifesto online bearing Earnest’s name. In the manifesto, Earnest made many anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim statements. Specifically, Earnest referred to “Jews” as a race, and he stated his only regret was that he did not kill more people.
According to the affidavit, Earnest also admitted in the manifesto to the arson of the Dar-ul-Arqam Mosque in March 2019. The affidavit alleges that on March 24, seven individuals were inside the mosque when they smelled gasoline and saw flames coming through the crack of one of the mosque’s doors. The individuals put out the fire, but not before the fire had damaged the exterior of the mosque. The affidavit further alleges that surveillance video showed a suspect arriving at the mosque in the same type of vehicle Earnest used in committing the attack on the Synagogue. The defendant allegedly claimed in his manifesto that he was inspired by the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the recent shootings at two mosques in New Zealand.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Shane Harrigan, Peter Ko, John Parmley, and Caroline Han, along with Trial Attorney Rose Gibson of the Civil Rights Division, are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government. The FBI, San Diego Sheriff’s Office, ATF, San Diego Police Department, and Escondido Police Department conducted the investigation.
Some of the charges, by statute, make Earnest eligible for the death penalty. The Attorney General will decide whether to seek the death penalty at a later time. Earnest is currently in state custody pending state criminal charges.
An indictment is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.
For more information about the Department of Justice’s work to combat and prevent hate crimes, visit www.justice.gov/hatecrimes: a one-stop portal with links to Department of Justice hate crimes resources for law enforcement, media, researchers, victims, advocacy groups, and other organizations and individuals.
DEFENDANT Case Number 19cr1850
John T. Earnest Age: 19 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Obstruction of Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs Resulting in Death and Bodily Injury; and Involving Attempt to Kill, Use of a Dangerous Weapon - 18 U.S.C. §§ 247(a)(2), 247(d)(1) and 247(d)(3)
Maximum penalty: Life in prison or death and $250,000 fine
Hate Crime Acts – 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1)(B)(i)(ii)
Maximum penalty: Life in prison and $250,000 fine
Damage to Religious Real Property Involving Use of a Dangerous Weapon or Fire – 18 U.S.C. §§ 247(a)(1), 247 (d)(3)
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
Using and Carrying a Firearm During and In Relation to a Crime of Violence – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. and 924(c) and 924(j)
Maximum penalty: Life in prison or death and $250,000 fine, mandatory minimum 10 years in prison
Using and Carrying a Firearm During and In Relation to a Crime of Violence – Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. and 924(c)
Maximum Penalty: Life in prison and $250,000 fine, mandatory minimum 10 years in prison
AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
San Diego Police Department
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
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
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Shane Harrigan (619) 546-6981, Caroline Han (619) 546-6968 and Peter Ko (619) 546-7359
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – May 9, 2019
SAN DIEGO – The U.S. Department of Justice today charged a Rancho Peñasquitos man with federal hate crimes, including the murder of one person and the attempted murder of 53 others, for his actions during the April 27 shooting at the Chabad of Poway Synagogue.
John T. Earnest, 19, was charged by criminal complaint with 109 hate crimes violations. The complaint alleges that these crimes were motivated by hatred toward the Jewish community.
“We will not allow our community members to be hunted in their houses of worship, where they should feel free and safe to exercise their right to practice their religion,” said U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer, Jr. “Our actions today are inspired by our desire to achieve justice for all of the victims and their families.”
“No one in this country should be subjected to unlawful violence, injury, or death for who they are or for their religious beliefs,” said Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband for the Civil Rights Division. “The Department will vigorously prosecute those who commit hate crimes and acts of domestic terrorism, and we will continue to work with our state and local partners to bring to justice anyone who violates the civil rights of Americans.”
“The FBI is steadfast in our commitment to gather all the facts and ensure justice is served in this case,” said FBI San Diego Acting Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner. “As we work together to bring justice and begin the healing process, our community has shown extraordinary strength and unity on so many levels - from our law enforcement partners, diverse faith-based communities, and extending to our citizens and neighbors.”
According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on April 27, Earnest drove to the Chabad of Poway Synagogue, where members of the congregation were gathered to engage in religious worship celebrating Shabat and last day of Passover. Earnest entered the building armed with an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle that was fully loaded with a 10-round magazine.
He wore a chest rig which contained five additional magazines, each loaded with ten rounds of ammunition. The affidavit alleges that while inside the Poway Synagogue, Earnest opened fire, killing one person and injuring three other members of the congregation, including a juvenile. During a pause when Earnest unsuccessfully attempted to reload his firearm, several congregant members, including an off-duty Border Patrol Agent, chased Earnest as he fled from the Synagogue. Earnest fled the scene in his car, but was subsequently apprehended by law enforcement authorities who discovered the AR-15 and additional magazines of ammunition in his car.
The affidavit further alleges that after the shooting, law enforcement investigators found a manifesto online bearing Earnest’s name. A copy of the mainfesto was later found on Earnest’s laptop during the execution of a search warrant. In the manifesto, Earnest made many anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim statements. Specifically, Earnest referred to “Jews” as a race, and he stated his only regret was that he did not kill more people.
According to the affidavit, Earnest also admitted in the manifesto to the arson of an Escondido Mosque in March 2019. The affidavit alleges that on March 24, 2019, seven individuals were inside the mosque when they smelled gasoline and saw flames coming through the crack of one of the mosque’s doors. The individuals put out the fire, but not before the fire had damaged the exterior of the mosque. The affidavit further alleges that surveillance video showed a suspect arriving at the mosque in the same type of vehicle Earnest used in committing the attack on the Synagogue. The defendant allegedly claimed in his manifesto that he was inspired by the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the recent shootings at two mosques in New Zealand.
Specifically, the complaint charges 109 hate crimes violations:
54 counts of obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs using a dangerous weapon, resulting in death, bodily injury, and attempts to kill;
54 counts of hate crimes in relation to the shooting in violation of the Mathew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act; and,
One count of damage to religious property by use of fire in relation to the attempted arson of the mosque.
When hate crimes are intended to intimidate and coerce a civilian population, they may also be considered acts of domestic terrorism.
Assistant United States Attorneys Shane Harrigan, Peter Ko, John Parmley, and Caroline Han, along with Trial Attorney Rose Gibson of the Civil Rights Division, are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government. The FBI, San Diego Sheriff’s Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted the investigations.
Earnest faces a maximum possible penalty of death, or life without parole. He is currently in state custody pending state criminal charges.
The defendant is expected to make his first appearance in federal court on Tuesday May 14 at 2 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Berg.
*The charges and allegations contained in a complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.
DEFENDANT Case Number 19MJ1900
John T. Earnest Age: 19 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Obstruction of Free Exercise of Religious Beliefs Resulting in Death and Bodily Injury; and Involving Attempt to Kill, Use of a Dangerous Weapon - 18 U.S.C. §§ 247(a)(2), 247(d)(1) and 247(d)(3)
Maximum penalty: Life in prison or death and $250,000 fine
Hate Crime Acts – 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1)(B)(i)(ii)
Maximum penalty: Life in prison and $250,000 fine
Damage to Religious Real Property Involving Use of a Dangerous Weapon or Fire – 18 U.S.C. §§ 247(a)(1), 247 (d)(3)
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
San Diego Police Department
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
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
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Shane Harrigan (619) 546-6981 and Caroline Han (619) 546-6968
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – October 25, 2019
SAN DIEGO – Canadian national and former San Diego resident Abdullahi Ahmed Abdullahi made his initial appearance in federal court today following his extradition to the United States on charges that he conspired with others to provide material support to terrorists engaged in violent activities in Syria.
Abdullahi is charged in a two-count indictment with conspiring with several Canadian and U.S. citizens, including Douglas McCain (“Douglas”), the first known American who died fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) on or about August 25, 2014. Douglas resided in San Diego prior to departing the United States for Turkey, and eventually, Syria.
“Terrorist networks like ISIS cannot exist without supporters,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “Protecting Americans from terrorists is our highest priority, and we will work hard to bring justice to those who provide material support to foreign terror organizations. I would like to thank the prosecutors, the FBI, our Joint Terrorism Task Force and our international law enforcement partners for all that they do to keep our communities safe.”
“Today’s announcement should serve as a warning to those who have traveled, attempted to travel, or support those fighting on behalf of ISIS. The FBI remains steadfast in ensuring they face justice," said FBI Special Agent in Charge Scott Brunner. “I commend San Diego's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and our interagency and international partners for their committed work which resulted in Abdullahi returning to the United States to answer for the crimes he is accused of committing.”
The Abdullahi indictment alleges that from in or about August 2013 through in or about November 2014, Abdullahi conspired with Douglas and other individuals to provide personnel and money to individuals engaged in terrorist activities in Syria, including the killing, kidnapping and maiming of persons. Specifically, the indictment alleges that Abdullahi facilitated the travel of at least three Canadian nationals and two U.S. citizens to Syria to join and fight for ISIS, all of whom were subsequently reportedly killed fighting for ISIS.
As alleged in the indictment, in order to get money to fund travel to and fighting with terrorists in Syria, Abdullahi’s co-conspirators encouraged others to commit crimes against the “kuffar” (an Arabic term meaning infidels or non-believers), such as theft. In furtherance of this material support conspiracy, the indictment alleges that on January 9, 2014, prior to the travel of Douglas and a second American, Abdullahi committed an armed robbery of a jewelry store in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, in order to finance the travel of Douglas and other members of the conspiracy to Syria. Thereafter, Abdullahi wired and caused others to wire money to other members of the conspiracy in the United States -- including approximately $3,100 to Douglas. The money paid for Douglas and the second individual to travel from the United States to Turkey. They later moved into Syria and engaged in terrorist activities, alongside other co-conspirators, including North Americans with whom Abdullahi maintained ties.
Additionally, members of the conspiracy, including Abdullahi, wired and caused money to be wired to third-party intermediaries in Gaziantep, Turkey (located approximately 40 miles from the Syrian border) for the purpose of supporting members of the conspiracy fighting and engaging in terrorist activity in Syria, including the killing, kidnapping, and maiming of persons.
On March 10, 2017, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of California returned a two-count sealed indictment charging Abdullahi with conspiring to provide, and providing, material support to terrorists. On September 15, 2017, pursuant to an extradition request by the United States, Canadian authorities arrested Abdullahi. Abdullahi was detained in Canadian custody without bail, pending extradition. Canadian authorities surrendered Abdullahi to the United States yesterday.
In a related case, Marchello Dsaun McCain, a convicted violent felon and the brother of Douglas, was sentenced in 2018 in federal court to 10 years in prison for his illegal possession of a cache of firearms and body armor and making false statements to federal agents involving international terrorism.
At today’s hearing, prosecutors moved to detain Abdullahi based on risk of flight and danger to the community. A detention hearing will be held on October 29 at 10:45 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Karen S. Crawford.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office wishes to thank the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs and our Canadian law enforcement partners, including the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, and the Canada Crown Prosecutor’s Office, for their extraordinary work in the process of securing Abdullahi’s extradition and return to the United States to face charges.
DEFENDANT Criminal Case No. 17CR0622-W
Abdullahi Ahmed Abdullahi Age: 34 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 2339A(a)
Maximum penalty: 15 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine
Providing Material Support to Terrorists – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 2339A(a)
Maximum penalty: 15 years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine.
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
San Diego Joint Terrorism Task Force
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Air Marshal Service
Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Border Patrol
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Shane Harrigan (619) 546-6981 and Caroline Han (619) 546-6968
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – December 2, 2019
SAN DIEGO – An indictment was unsealed in federal court today charging Jehad Serwan Mostafa, a 37-old U.S. citizen and former San Diego resident who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist List, with terrorism violations arising from his critical role in providing support to the militant Islamic terrorist organization, al-Shabaab.
The superseding indictment alleges that from no later than March 2008 through in or about February 2017, Mostafa conspired to provide material support, including himself as personnel, to terrorists; conspired to provide material support to al-Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO); and provided material support to al-Shabaab.
Mostafa, also known as “Ahmed Gurey,” “Ahmed,” “Anwar,” “Abu Anwar al Muhajir,” and “Abu Abdallah al Muhajir,” was originally charged in a three-count indictment in October 2009 with similar charges. The superseding indictment announced today expands the scope of the indictment alleging that Mostafa’s support of terrorist activities and al-Shabaab continued up to and including February 2017.
On March 20, 2013, the Department of State’s Reward for Justice Program offered a reward of up to $5 million dollars for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Mostafa. U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer said the United States unsealed the superseding indictment with hopes that Mostafa will be apprehended and brought to justice. “We believe this defendant is the highest-ranking U.S. citizen fighting overseas with a terrorist organization,” Brewer said. “Al-Shabaab’s reign of terror threatens U.S. national security, our international allies and innocent civilians. Today we seek the public’s assistance in capturing Mostafa and disrupting Al-Shabaab.”
Scott Brunner, the Special-Agent-In-Charge of the San Diego FBI, stated that Mostafa is currently believed to be in Somalia, and the FBI is seeking the assistance of the public, both in the United States and East Africa, in locating and apprehending Mostafa. SAC Brunner stated that the apprehension and prosecution of Mostafa will aid in disrupting al-Shabaab’s terrorist activities, which continue to threaten U.S. national security, our international allies, and innocent civilians, both U.S. and foreign citizens alike.
SAC Brunner stated that Mostafa was raised in the Serra Mesa area of San Diego and attended high school and college in San Diego. After graduating from college, in late 2005 at the age of 23, Mostafa departed San Diego, traveling first to Sana’a, Yemen, and then on to Somalia where he engaged in fighting against internationally supported Ethiopian forces. Mostafa eventually joined al-Shabaab, a terrorist group that the U.S. Department of State designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2008.
Al-Shabaab, meaning “The Youth” in Arabic, is a violent and brutal militia group that has used intimidation and violence to undermine the Somali government and the foreign military presence supporting it. The group seeks to control territory within Somalia in order to establish a society based on its rigid interpretation of Sharia law. In 2012, it pledged allegiance to the militant Islamist organization Al-Qaeda. Over time, al-Shabaab has engaged in external operations in neighboring countries in pursuit of global jihad. While its terrorist attacks have been concentrated in East Africa, it has claimed responsibility for attacks that resulted in injuries to Americans and/or had ties to San Diego: the 2010 Kampala, Uganda suicide bombing of a bar during a World Cup soccer match that killed a U.S. citizen working for a San Diego non-profit organization; and a 2013 attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya that killed over 60 and injured U.S. citizens, including a graduate of Torrey Pines High School. Additionally, as recently as January 15, 2019, al-Shabaab executed a coordinated attack at the DusitD2 hotel in Nairobi, Kenya, where 16 innocent civilians were killed, including one U.S. citizen.
SAC Brunner stated that for over a decade, Mostafa has played a critical role in al-Shabaab, including in its media operations, training of soldiers, and participating in attacks on Somali government forces and African Union troops. Since 2009, Mostafa has held leadership positions with al-Shabaab, and today is believed to be the highest-ranking U.S. citizen fighting overseas with a terrorist organization. In 2011, Mostafa appeared at a press conference with an al-Shabaab leader, purporting to be an al-Qaeda emissary. SAC Brunner stated that the FBI assesses that this media stunt evidences his efforts to facilitate al-Shabaab’s relationship with other terrorist groups and role in external operations.
According to SAC Brunner, in 2019, the FBI became aware of Mostafa’s participation and leadership within al-Shabaab’s explosives department. Specifically, Mostafa has been implicated in the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in attacks in Somalia and in improving their effectiveness as a tool of terror. Al-Shabaab has recently used IEDs against U.S. interests in Somalia. On September 30, 2019, al-Shabaab attacked the Baledogle U.S. military airbase in southern Somalia where U.S. soldiers are located to support Somali and African Union troops, and assaulted an Italian military convoy traveling in the Somali capital of Mogadishu. Al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for both attacks. Al-Shabaab is resolved to continue attacks on innocent civilians in Somalia and in the region, and has demonstrated it will go to great lengths to threaten the security of the United States and our partners.
SAC Brunner noted that the FBI believes Mostafa continues to play a critical role in planning operations directed against the Somali government and internationally supported African Union forces in Somalia and East Africa. As a result, Mostafa continues to pose a direct threat to U.S. forces, civilians and interests.
The public is reminded that a reward of up to $5 million dollars is being offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Mostafa. Anyone with information about Jehad Serwan Mostafa can report tips anonymously by phone at 1-800-CALL-FBI or online at “tips.fbi.gov” or can contact the nearest FBI office, American Embassy or Consulate.
DEFENDANT Criminal Case No. 09CR3726-WQH
Jehad Serwan Mostafa Age 37 Somalia (former resident of San Diego)
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2339A(a)
Maximum penalty: Fifteen years in prison and $250,000 fine
Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2339B(a)(1)
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
Providing Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2339B(a)(1)
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Valerie Chu (619) 546-6750, Caroline Han (619) 546-6968 and Fred Sheppard (619) 546-8237
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – February 22, 2019
SAN DIEGO – This week in federal court a slew of conspirators involved in a massive Workers’ Compensation kickback scheme were ordered to serve prison sentences and pay millions in financial penalties for their roles in the corrupt payment of millions of dollars to induce doctors and other medical professionals to refer hundreds of injured workers for medical treatments and services.
According to court records, dozens of marketers, doctors, lawyers and medical service providers conspired to bilk the Workers’ Compensation system in California by buying and selling patients -- and their individual “body parts” -- like commodities. Among the defendants sentenced this week was an attorney, a chiropractor, two business owners and several marketers who referred patients for tests (such as MRIs, functional capacity exams and sleep studies), treatments (such as “shockwave,” x-rays, and ultrasound), pain medications, and durable medical equipment (DME) based on the corrupt payments. The conspirators often subjected patients to uncomfortable and sometimes painful procedures, so the conspirators could thereafter bill insurance companies for millions of dollars. As the government argued in its sentencing papers, the conspirators’ corruption of the doctor-patient relationship caused physicians to see price tags on every patient’s body parts. Each of the defendants played a critical role in the corrupt scheme.
The Corrupt Network
Defendant Fermin Iglesias and co-defendant Carlos Arguello operated a patient-capping enterprise, in which they found individuals who would file Workers’ Compensation claims against their employers. Iglesias and Arguello then sold, bartered and exchanged these applicants with others in the Workers’ Compensation industry, including attorneys, primary care physicians, and providers of medical goods and services. Each of these entities had to “pay to play,” and as the patient was referred throughout this corrupt system, money changed hands at each step. Arguello operated several patient-recruitment entities, including one called Centro Legal. Through billboards, flyers, advertisements and business cards, Centro Legal recruited persons to seek workers' compensation benefits from their employers or former employers. When the injured worker called the 1-800 number on the billboard or card, he or she reached a call center, which might be located in another country. From there, Iglesias’ company, Providence Scheduling, took over brokering the patient to maximize the profit that could be extracted from him or her.
Centro Legal referred the newly-acquired patient to complicit Workers' Compensation attorneys, including, in San Diego, attorney Sean O’Keefe, who had one of the largest Workers’ Comp caseloads in the region. To get these new clients, the attorneys in the corrupt network were expected to comply with certain conditions: first, they had to use Arguello’s copying service to fulfil document requests for all of the new client’s medical records; second, they had to agree to designate as their client’s primary treating physician (“PTP”) one of the complicit physicians within the corrupt network. In exchange, the attorneys received compensation. For O'Keefe, the compensation took a variety of forms. One hospital administrator paid the salaries of two employees of O’Keefe’s law firm, as a kickback to O’Keefe for referring spinal surgeries to that hospital. In another variation, the kickback payments were disguised as payments for nonexistent legal services, for which O’Keefe generated phony “legal invoices” to cover up those obviously illegal payments.
The corrupt physician could serve as the patients' primary care physician in the Workers' Comp system. This was a key gatekeeper role, because the PTP was entrusted with the authority to determine what additional goods and services the patient needed. Iglesias required that the chiropractors prescribe a certain minimum quota of goods and services, on average, for each patient. If the chiropractor failed to live up to the quota, Iglesias would cut off the flow of new patients.
Dr. Steven Rigler was one of the chiropractors involved in the corrupt referral network. He had clinics in Calexico, San Diego, and Escondido. To get patients for his San Diego and Escondido clinics, Rigler agreed to meet the referral “quota” set by Iglesias and Arguello. Court records reflect that Iglesias set a “value” for each type of service the physicians could refer, for example, $30 for each MRI, and $150 for Durable Medical Equipment (DME), to meet the quota of $600. To get credit, physicians had to refer their DME orders to Iglesias’ company, Meridian Medical Resources. Many of the MRIs were referred to Advanced Radiology, a diagnostic imaging company owned by Dr. Ronald Grusd. In Calexico, Ruben Martinez ran Rigler’s clinic and managed all of Rigler’s referrals for ancillary services. Alexander K. Martinez performed the same service for Rigler’s other clinics.
If the physicians failed to meet the quota, Iglesias cut off the pipeline of new patients. Iglesias employed Miguel Morales to ensure that physicians met the quota, and to demand lump-sum payoffs from them if they failed to do so. And to avoid such problems, and ensure a smooth referral process, Arguello hired referral managers who worked in chiropractor offices. For a time, Julian Garcia was paid by Arguello to manage Rigler's referrals. Garcia had Rigler's signature stamp, and if Rigler got behind, Garcia would simply increase the number of MRIs referred for each patient. Eventually, Garcia himself got licensed as a DME provider, and he himself paid chiropractors $50 apiece to prescribe “hot/cold packs” for pain relief, which were then billed to insurance companies for nearly $6,000.
Jennifer Louise White represented providers of other types of services, namely, Autonomic Nervous System (“ANS”) studies and sleep studies. She worked with Alex Martinez and with providers of the ANS and sleep studies to pay nearly $200,000 in kickbacks to Rigler to refer patients for these services.
Sentencing Hearings
In sentencing hearings held on February 20 and 21, 2019, U.S. District Judge Cynthia A. Bashant sentenced each defendant to custodial time. For his crimes, Iglesias was sentenced to 60 months in custody, and required to forfeit $1,005,000 in ill-gotten gains. Judge Bashant imposed five years’ probation on Igelsias’ corporations, MedEx and Meridian, and imposed a $500,000 joint and several fine. Miguel Morales was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day in custody, and was required to forfeit $140,000.
Alexander and Ruben Martinez were each sentenced to 33 months in custody and three years of supervised release. Their companies, Line of Sight and Desert Blue Moon, were sentenced to five years’ probation and fines of $45,000 and $20,000 respectively. Jennifer Louise White was sentenced to 24 months in custody, and ordered to pay fine of $25,000.
Onetime Workers’ Compensation applicant attorney Sean E. O’Keefe received a sentenced of 13 months in custody, and was required to forfeit $300,000 in ill-gotten gains. San Diego chiropractor Steven J. Rigler was sentenced to six months in custody, and was ordered to forfeit $150,000. The court substantially reduced both defendants’ sentences because they cooperated with authorities soon after being confronted by agents, and played critical roles in revealing the scope of the corrupt network.
Throughout the sentencing hearings, Judge Bashant expressed dismay that the defendants scammed a system “that’s set up to help people that really need the help.” She further expressed concern that these crimes would undermine public support for social safety-nets, such as the Workers’ Compensation system for injured workers. She expressed particular disappointment that licensed professionals like attorney O’Keefe and Dr. Rigler would engage in the fraud: “You are the most educated. You should know better,” she reproached them.
This week’s sentencing hearings, along with the conviction and sentence of Beverly Hills Radiologist Dr. Ronald Grusd, bring to a successful close the first wave of cases brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and its law enforcement partners to combat fraud in the California Workers’ Compensation System.
“It is unfortunate that some individuals see only an opportunity to profit in a system designed to aid injured workers,” said U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer, Jr. “What’s more, this crime corrupted the doctor-patient relationship. A doctor’s medical decisions should be based on the best interest of the patient, not the highest bidder.”
“Health care fraud betrays vulnerable patients and steals funds meant to care for injured workers,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge John Brown. “The cases in 'Operation Back Lash' have shown that these medical professionals, doctors, and attorneys who took bribes chose profit over their patients. This massive investigation, with over 30 convictions to date, demonstrates the FBI's commitment to finding those who commit fraud and bringing them to justice.”
Anyone with information about healthcare fraud may call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI, or 1-800-225-5324 or the California Department of Insurance’s toll-free fraud hotline, 800-927-4357.
DEFENDANTS
United States v. Grusd, et al., 15cr2821-BAS Sentence
Ronald Grusd, Los Angeles, CA 10 years, $1.3 million forfeiture, $250,000 fine
California Imaging Network Medical Group 5 years’ Probation, $500,000 fine
Willows Consulting Company 5 years’ Probation, $500,000 fine
Alex Martinez, El Centro, CA 37 months’ custody
Ruben Martinez, Murietta, CA 33 months’ custody
Line of Sight, Inc. 5 years’ Probation, $45,000 fine
Desert Blue Moon, Inc. 5 years’ Probation, $20,000 fine
Assistant U. S. Attorneys John Parmley (619) 546-7957 and Caroline Han (619) 546-6968
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – November 5, 2019
SAN DIEGO – Daniel Hector Mackinnon was sentenced in federal court today to seven years in prison for committing two politically-motivated arsons, including one that endangered the lives of children.
During today’s hearing, U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes described Mackinnon’s conduct as “cold blooded and cowardly” and expressed concern that Mackinnon is a danger to the community. “In light of what you did, I think every day is warranted,” Judge Hayes told the defendant, referring to the length of the sentence.
According to the government’s sentencing memorandum, Mackinnon’s conviction covered two separate arsons, both occurring in the early morning hours of April 24, 2019. Investigators believe Mackinnon targeted the victims based on the nature of the business and/or their professional/political ties. Beginning early that morning, Mackinnon attempted to set fire to the La Jolla home of a prominent San Diego real estate developer. At the time of the arson, the home was occupied by two adults and three small children, all of whom were sleeping. The defendant poured an accelerant onto the door and ignited it, causing damage to the door. Investigators found remnants of a plastic water bottle, a pry bar and a bottle cap at the scene and were able to tie Mackinnon to the arson based on DNA recovered from the bottle cap.
Mackinnon’s second arson that morning occurred at the Kearny Mesa building of Raytheon, a defense contractor that does weapons systems work for the military at the facility. Based on surveillance video, Mackinnon first drove his car into Raytheon’s building. After his car bounced back, he exited his car and opened the vehicle’s back hatch. A short while later, fire shot out, engulfing the vehicle and causing damage to the building’s exterior. Surveillance video showed Mackinnon fleeing the scene after which he drove into Mexico. A multi-agency effort of federal, state and local partners worked to identify Mackinnon and he was arrested the same day as he attempted to re-enter the United States at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.
As set forth in the government’s sentencing memorandum, Mackinnon has previously committed politically-motivated petty crimes in the early 2000s, including remaining at the scene of a riot after being arrested at a Southern Kalifornia Anarchist Alliance May Day demonstration and “keying” a media vehicle at an environment protest.
“Fire is a dangerous and indiscriminate weapon,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “Mackinnon’s arsons not only caused damage to a business, but also endangered the lives of small children who were asleep in their homes. Because of the quick response and savvy investigative efforts of our federal, state and local law enforcement partners, Mackinnon was quickly apprehended and his crime spree was swiftly ended.” Brewer also thanked prosecutors Caroline Han and John Parmley for working hard to keep the public safe.
“This conviction and sentence sends an important message to those who use violence to express their discontent,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Scott Brunner. “The FBI will identify and bring to justice arsonists and other violent actors who put the safety of San Diegans at risk.”
DEFENDANT Criminal Case No. 19CR1849-WQH
Daniel Hector Mackinnon Age 37 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Malicious damage to building by means of fire, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 844(i).
Mandatory minimum penalty: Five years in prison
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
San Diego FBI - Joint Terrorism Task Force
San Diego Police Department
Metro Arson Strike Team
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
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
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Valerie Chu (619) 546-6750, Caroline Han (619) 546-6968 or Fred Sheppard (619) 546-8237
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – June 18, 2018
SAN DIEGO – Beverly Hills Radiologist Ronald Grusd and two of his corporations, California Imaging Network Medical Group and Willows Consulting Company, were sentenced in federal court today after a jury trial in December resulted in convictions on 39 felony fraud counts.
U.S. District Judge Cynthia A. Bashant imposed a sentenced of 10 years in custody and a fine of $250,000, and remanded Dr. Grusd into custody. His companies, California Imaging Network and Willows Consulting Company, were each required to pay a $500,000 fine, and an additional $15,600 in special assessments.
According to evidence presented at trial, Dr. Grusd and his companies paid kickbacks for patient referrals from multiple clinics in San Diego and Imperial counties in order to fraudulently bill insurance companies over $22 million for medical services.
Dr. Grusd negotiated with various individuals, including a primary treating physician, the payment of kickbacks for the referral of workers’ compensation patients for various medical services, including MRIs, ultrasounds, Shockwave treatments, toxicology testing and prescription pain medications. After the patients were referred for the treatment or service, one of Dr. Grusd’s companies, California Imaging Network Medical Group, would fraudulently bill insurance companies for the procedures, concealing from both the patients and the insurers that substantial kickbacks had been paid in violation of California law. Another of Dr. Grusd’s companies, Willows Consulting Company, funneled the kickback payments to those directing the referral of the patients from the various clinics. Records presented at trial showed that Dr. Grusd paid over $100,000 in bribes to secure the billings for hundreds of patients, with bribes paid on a per-patient or per-body-part formula.
Dr. Grusd and the corporations were originally indicted by a federal grand jury in November 2015, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, working in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Department of Insurance, announced multiple arrests arising from a long-term, proactive health care fraud investigation targeting corruption and fraud in the California Workers’ Compensation system.
Grusd’s practice, California Imaging Network Medical Group, operated clinics throughout California in San Diego, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Fresno, Rialto, Santa Ana, Studio City, Bakersfield, Calexico, East Los Angeles, Lancaster, Victorville and Visalia.
In imposing sentence, District Judge Bashant expressed concern that by paying incentives, Dr. Grusd applied pressure on the referring physician, and “made it highly questionable if all services were necessary,” a harm that the laws were designed to prevent.
Judge Bashant found that Dr. Grusd “clearly knew what he was doing.” Dr. Grusd, who had testified as to his extensive education, training, and expertise as a highly-decorated radiologist, claimed on the witness stand at trial that he was confused and did not know that what he was doing was illegal. Judge Bashant rejected this view, stating that Dr. Grusd was someone who decided to “find a way to defraud…then act dumb on the witness stand” when he got caught. She imposed a sentencing penalty for Obstruction of Justice, finding that Grusd unequivocally committed perjury and lied at trial. The judge said she was concerned about the need for both general and specific deterrence: general, because health care fraud is an area where criminals are rarely caught, requiring a significant consequence in order to deter other would-be criminals. In this case, specific deterrence was also applicable, because, in her view, there was a risk that Dr. Grusd could engage in further unlawful conduct in the future. “Dr. Grusd,” she noted, was someone who would “act smart enough to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.”
“A patient entrusts his life to his physician,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Braverman. “A doctor’s medical decisions should be based on the best interest of the patient, not the highest bidder. The court recognized that Dr. Grusd perverted that sacred relationship by buying and selling patients – oftentimes on a per-body-part basis – to fuel his personal lifestyle.”
U.S. Attorney Braverman commended the efforts of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Department of Insurance to investigate these offenses, and thanked San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan and her office for collaborating with the United States Attorney’s Office on this investigation.
San Diego FBI Special Agent-In-Charge John A. Brown applauded today's sentence as indicative of how the insidious malignancy embodied by the payment of illegal bribes to and from medical providers seriously degrades the patient-physician relationship and places patients at risk. “Operation Backlash exemplifies the positive impact the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working side by side with our investigative partners, the California Department of Insurance, and the San Diego District Attorney's Office, can have against those medical service providers who so easily replace honest patient care with greed. The FBI will continue to leverage these partnerships to expose these schemes and hold physicians and allied medical professionals accountable.”
Anyone with information about healthcare fraud may call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI, or 1-800-225-5324 or the California Department of Insurance’s toll-free fraud hotline, 800-927-4357.
DEFENDANTS Case Number: 15cr2821-BAS
Ronald Grusd Los Angeles, CA
California Imaging Network Medical Group Incorporated in 2007
Willows Consulting Company Incorporated in 2011
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Mail Fraud, Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Health Care Fraud, in violation 18 U.S.C. 1349
Maximum Penalty: 20 years in custody; $250,000 fine, or twice the pecuniary gain or loss; three years’ supervised release; restitution to victims of the offense; forfeiture
Honest Services Mail and Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1341, 1343 and 1346 (18 Counts)
Maximum Penalty (each count): 20 years in custody; $250,000 fine or twice the pecuniary gain or loss; three years’ supervised release; restitution to victims of the offense; forfeiture
Health Care Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347, (14 Counts)
Maximum Penalty (each count): 20 years in custody; $250,000 fine or twice the pecuniary gain or loss; three years’ supervised release; restitution to victims of the offense; forfeiture
Travel Act, in violation of U.S.C. 1952 (6 Counts)
Maximum Penalty: Five years in custody; $250,000 fine or twice the pecuniary gain or loss; three years’ supervised release; restitution to victims of the offense; forfeiture
RALEIGH, N.C. – Bruce Carroll Callahan, Jr., aka “Hoss,” an armed Robeson County drug trafficker and prior federal felon who bragged to investigators about being the “biggest” drug dealer in Robeson County, was sentenced today to 300 months in prison for his role in a conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, cocaine and crack sourced from Honduras and Mexico in Eastern North Carolina. Callahan claimed to have access to over twenty kilograms of narcotics at any time.
While awaiting trial and prior to his September 26, 2023, guilty plea, Callahan, age 45, escaped from the Piedmont Regional Jail in Farmville, Virginia where he was being held. He was discovered missing on May 1, 2023, and apprehended on May 9, 2023, just a few miles from the jail. Callahan was convicted for his prison escape and sentenced to 20 months in custody followed by three years of supervised release.
“This is the fourth sentence of 25 years or more stemming from drug trafficking in Robeson County in just over a month,” said U.S. Attorney Michael Easley. “We and the ATF are partnering with local law enforcement to put dangerous drug traffickers like Callahan behind bars. Drug traffickers can run, but not for long.”
“This arrest underscores our efforts and commitment to combat the drug trafficking trade,” says Sheriff Burnis Wilkins. “Violent crime and overdose deaths are at an all-time high, and it is collaborative efforts such as this that will improve the quality of life in Robeson County.”
“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and our local, state and federal partners remain committed to addressing the most serious threats to our communities, including the gun violence often linked to drug trafficking networks,” said ATF Special Agent in Charge Bennie Mims. “Dismantling drug trafficking networks and bringing those responsible to justice has an immediate impact on the level of gun violence and violent crime in our area.”
“The United States Marshals Service, through its long-standing federal, state, and local partnerships ensures that violent fugitives are continuously pursued, discretely located, and safely arrested,” said U.S. Marshal Glenn McNeill for the Eastern District of North Carolina. “The investigation and capture of Callahan is yet another example of those efforts.”
According to court documents and other information presented in court, the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) and ATF launched an investigation into Callahan and his drug trafficking operation in 2021 after receiving numerous community reports that he was selling drugs in the Fairmont area of Robeson County. During the summer of 2021, investigators conducted two controlled purchases of cocaine and crack from Callahan’s residence.
In September 2021, law enforcement arranged for a controlled purchase of two kilograms of fentanyl from Callahan. Callahan’s Honduran suppliers arranged for co-defendants Rony Lardi-Ortiz and Jefferson Marin Funez to deliver the fentanyl to Callahan’s Fairmont residence on September 16, 2021. Lardi-Ortiz and Funez have previously pled guilty and have been sentenced to 120 months and 126 months respectively for their role in the conspiracy.
After Callahan received the two kilograms of fentanyl from Lardi-Ortiz and Funez, they left Callahan’s residence, travelling north on Interstate 95 to deliver the fentanyl. RCSO deputies conducted a traffic stop on their vehicle. Though Callahan and his co-defendants attempted to jump out of the vehicle and flee, they were quickly apprehended. Investigators located the two kilograms of fentanyl sitting on the back seat in Callahan’s vehicle. A search warrant was then executed at Callahan’s residence where a quantity of cocaine and cocaine base were seized along with items used to package drugs for sale and a .45 caliber handgun.
Callahan pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, cocaine, and crack; possession with intent to distribute four hundred (400) grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl; and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Callahan’s prior felony convictions include a 2003 federal conviction for possession of firearm by a felon in addition to several convictions in Robeson County Superior Court for felonious assaults, trafficking cocaine, and robbery with a dangerous weapon.
Michael Easley, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office, and the Lumberton Police Department investigated the case and Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Webb prosecuted the case.
The other recent Robeson County cases yielding sentences of 25 years or more include:
Antonio Lavonne Locklear, who received a 25-year sentence drug trafficking;
Aaron Albert Goode, a convicted murderer who received a 30-year sentence for drug trafficking; and
Clarence Jamar Graham, who received a 25-year sentence for trafficking fentanyl.
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. 7:21-CR-0138-D-1.
RICHMOND, Va. – A North Carolina man was sentenced today to 25 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute parafluorofentanyl and fentanyl.According to court documents, on the evening of September 17, 2023, Jaron James Starkey, 35, of Charlotte, and formerly of New Castle County, Delaware, was driving erratically southbound on I-95 in Caroline County. Other drivers traveling on I-95 called 911 to report the erratic driving. Virginia State Police (VSP) responded to the area and upon arrival observed that Starkey had crashed his Jeep. Starkey, who was alone in the car, was speaking incoherently and his eyes were bloodshot. He was transported to the Mary Washington Hospital emergency room.Upon approaching the vehicle, the responding VSP officers also observed thousands of glassine baggies, each of which appeared to contain a white powder, scattered throughout Starkey’s car. A total of 4,497 blue glassine baggies collected contained Parafluorofentanyl, with a net weight of over 122 grams. Also in the vehicle were 120 white glassine baggies containing fentanyl.Starkey has 21 prior convictions as an adult, including two previous drug trafficking convictions, convictions for possessing firearms as a convicted felon, and conspiracy to commit burglary, among others. Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Stanley M. Meador, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Richmond Field Office; Lt. Colonel Matt Hanley, Virginia State Police Interim Superintendent; and Brian Layton, Chief of Fredericksburg Police, made the announcement after sentencing by Senior U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson. The Fredericksburg Regional Narcotics Task Force assisted in the investigation of this case.Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela Mastandrea 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. 3:24-cr-58.
Three Miami-based wildlife traffickers were recently sentenced to prison for trapping and selling migratory birds.
Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Edward Grace, Acting Assistant Director of the Office of Law Enforcement, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Office of Law Enforcement, Southeast Region; Alfredo Escanio, Major/Regional Commander, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Division of Law Enforcement, South B Region; Martin G. Wade, Director, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations, Miami Air and Marine Branch; Pedro Ramos, Superintendent, Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks (NPS); and Antonio J. Gomez, Postal Inspector in Charge, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), Miami Division made the announcement.
In April of this year, law enforcement announced the filing of federal charges against six individuals, in six separate cases, for their involvement with the trafficking of over 400 migratory birds. Each of the six defendants pled guilty to various criminal offenses involving migratory birds. Three of the defendants, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, a/k/a “El Doctor,” Miguel Loureiro and Hovary Muniz were recently sentenced to prison for their crimes. The three other defendants, Corbo Martinez (Case No. 17-CR-20596-WILLIAMS), Reynaldo Mederos (Case No. 18-CR-20140-LENARD) and Carlos Hernandez (Case No. 17-CR-20759-MARTINEZ), are pending sentencing.
United States v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, a/k/a “El Doctor,”
Case No. 18-CR-20141-MOORE
On July 30, 2018, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, 54, of Homestead, was sentenced to six months in prison. Previously, he pled guilty to three counts of selling, offering for sale, bartering, and offering to barter migratory birds.
According to court documents, between May 2014 and November 2016, Rodriguez trafficked in migratory birds, including Puerto Rican Spindalises (Spindalis portoricensis), Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), Puerto Rican Bullfinches (Loxigilla portoricensis), Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivaceus), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Cooper’s Hawks (Accipiter cooperii), Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), Gray Catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), Summer Tanagers (Piranga rubra), Screech-Owls (genus Megascops), and Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus).
Rodriguez used an array of methods to trap migratory birds. Rodriguez deployed wooden-and-wire bird traps with multiple pitfall doors baited with seed and a “bait bird.” Rodriguez positioned these traps at numerous regional collection points throughout Miami-Dade County. Rodriguez employed limesticks coated in adhesive materials known as “pega” to catch particular species of birds. Rodriguez also erected ten-foot high, 100-foot long mist nets at the edge of fields during migration season. He flushed birds into the mist net by driving his truck across the field towards the nets, and, while many of the birds did not survive this process, the mist nets captured large numbers of migratory birds. Rodriguez captured these migratory birds to sell them. He sold hundreds of birds to undercover agents. After a determination that the release of the seized wildlife was safe and appropriate, USFWS released the birds into the wild. Rodriguez also shot hawks and sold their frozen corpses. In total, undercover agents purchased approximately 181 birds from Rodriguez.
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, CBP, CBP Air and Marine Operations and USPIS in this matter. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Miguel Loureiro,
Case No. 18-CR-20164-MARTINEZ
On August 10, 2018, Miguel Loureiro, 27, was sentenced to nine months in prison. Previously, he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in migratory birds.
According to court documents, beginning in January 2016 and ending in December 2017, Loureiro and a co-conspirator trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), White-crowned Sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Clay-colored Sparrows (Spizella palida), and Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum). Loureiro deployed sixteen wire and wooden bird traps augmented by solar-powered electronic birdcall broadcasting systems in order to trap migratory birds. Three of those traps were in secluded areas of forest near Everglades National Park. He sold his illegally captured migratory birds to buyers throughout the United States. During the execution of a search warrant at Loureiro’s residence, law enforcement discovered over 100 illegally-captured migratory birds in cages. After a determination that the release of the seized wildlife was safe and appropriate, USFWS returned these birds into the wild.
In the course of his migratory bird trafficking, Loureiro forcefully threw a Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) against a wall because he believed it was a threat to his inventory of migratory birds for sale. He then affixed it to a wooden cross. Loueriro filmed this activity and uploaded the images onto a private internet chat group that he used to advertise migratory birds for sale.
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, and NPS. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Hovary Muniz,
Case No. 18-CR-20355-UNGARO
On July 23, 2018, Hovary Muniz, 42, of Miami, was sentenced to a total of fifteen months in prison. Previously, he pled guilty to five counts of knowingly selling and offering migratory birds for sale.
According to court documents, Muniz pled guilty in 2016 to smuggling migratory birds from Cuba into the United States in a fanny pack. In 2017 and 2018, while on probation for that wildlife trafficking offense, Muniz offered Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivacea) and other migratory birds for sale.
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jaime Raich and Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
The public is encouraged to report any instances of illegal wildlife trapping and trafficking to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service at (305) 526-2610 or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) at 888-404-3922 or by email or text to Tip@MyFWC.com.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov.
Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Luis J. Santiago, Special Agent in Charge, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Office of Law Enforcement, Southeast Region; Alfredo Escanio, Major/Regional Commander, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Division of Law Enforcement, South B Region; Martin G. Wade, Director, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations, Miami Air and Marine Branch; Pedro Ramos, Superintendent, Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks (NPS); and Antonio J. Gomez, Postal Inspector in Charge, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), Miami Division, announce the filing of federal charges against 6 defendants in 6 separate cases for their involvement with the trafficking of over 400 migratory birds.
In 1918, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for the protection of migratory birds. Now in its 100th year, the MBTA prohibits, inter alia, the pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, barter, purchase, shipping, exportation, and importation of migratory birds. Migratory birds are listed at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulation, Section 10.13.
Working independently and separately from each other, these six charged defendants used sophisticated methods to traffic protected wildlife, specifically migratory birds. The methods included bird traps augmented by electronic birdcall broadcast systems powered with solar panels and rechargeable batteries; baited bird traps spread throughout the region as collection points; the erection of mist nets at one end of a field during migration season and the operation of a truck from the other end of the field to flush hundreds of migratory birds into the mist nets; the strategic deployment of specially formulated adhesives to glue migratory birds to tree limbs and sticks; and the hunting of migratory birds, in particular the illegal hunting of raptors with rifles. They also used traditional smuggling techniques to unlawfully transport the captured wildlife. These techniques included the shipment of migratory birds to buyers across the country in boxes with hidden compartments; the use of a false name and address on airmail shipments; false statements on customs declarations; and the concealment of the protected wildlife in hair curlers taped to a defendant’s body, beneath baggy pants.
In some instances, the wildlife trafficking in these cases involved severe animal cruelty and resulted in injury to the birds. Some of the trafficked birds showed signs of having sustained injuries while attempting to flee captivity. Some of the birds, specifically some of the hawks, were actually dead at the time of sale and other birds died shortly after purchase. One defendant left the captured birds entangled in netting, where they were preyed upon by wild dogs and cats. Another defendant maimed some of the migratory birds by ripping out their tail feathers. A third defendant, believing that a Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) was a threat to his inventory of migratory birds for sale, threw the animal against a wall and affixed it to a wooden cross. The defendant filmed this activity and uploaded the images onto a private internet chat group that he used to advertise migratory birds for sale.
In the course of these investigations, undercover USFWS and FWC agents purchased and/or seized migratory birds from all six of these defendants. After a determination that the release of the seized wildlife is safe and appropriate, USFWS will return hundreds of these birds into the wild.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office stands alongside our law enforcement and community partners as we strive to protect our natural resources and wildlife, including the diverse migratory bird population, that make South Florida such a vibrant environmental sanctuary,” stated U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg. “Today’s announcement reinforces our continued commitment to the federal prosecution of individuals who pose a threat to our nation’s wildlife, in particular our protected bird species.”
"The 100th anniversary of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act is a good time to remind Americans of the benefits we all enjoy from a land that is rich in birds and all wildlife,” said Special Agent in Charge Luis Santiago, USFWS Southeast Region’s Office of Law Enforcement. “Our work enforcing this law and others recognizes the value Americans place on wildlife, and it is important to make sure that future generations can enjoy these as well.”
“We are honored to have been a part of these important enforcement efforts,” stated Major Alfredo Escanio, FWC Regional Commander. “We want to get the word out that these birds are protected, and ask the public to let us know if they see anyone trying to trap or sell these birds.”
“As fellow aviators, we at CBP Air and Marine Operations (AMO) were particularly excited to participate in this case, to help set these ‘ornery’ birds free to fly again. AMO uses its specialized capabilities to serve and protect the American people. That includes working with our partners to enforce hundreds of U.S. laws, including the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” said Jeff Maher, Deputy Director, CBP Air Operations at the Miami Air and Marine Branch.
"The American people are investing billions of dollars to restore the Everglades and this kind of illegal poaching activity cannot be tolerated,” stated NPS Superintendent Pedro Ramos. “I am grateful to all of our partner agencies, the investigators, and the Department of Justice professionals who have worked on these important cases. Through their hard work, not only are we able to protect important species of birds, but also protect the investments being made in Everglades restoration ultimately for the benefit of future generations."
“As shown through this announcement, violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty threaten the livelihood of innocent animals,” said Antonio J. Gomez, Inspector in Charge, USPIS Miami Division. “This case demonstrates that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to enforce all federal laws that are in place to protect U.S. residents and wildlife. We are proud that our collaborative efforts were successful in bringing justice to the animals horrifically harmed and removed from their natural habitats.”
Today’s announcement reaffirms the collective commitment of federal, state and local authorities to the prosecution of wildlife traffickers. The cases brought under this operation include:
United States v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, a/k/a “El Doctor,”
Case No. 18-CR-20141-MOORE
On March 1, 2018, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, 54, of Homestead, was charged in an eighteen-count indictment with selling, offering for sale, bartering, and offering to barter migratory birds.
According to the indictment, between May 2014 and November 2016, Rodriguez trafficked in migratory birds, including Puerto Rican Spindalises (Spindalis portoricensis), Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), Puerto Rican Bullfinches (Loxigilla portoricensis), Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivaceus), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Cooper’s Hawks (Accipiter cooperii), Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), Gray Catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), Summer Tanagers (Piranga rubra), Screech-Owls (genus Megascops), and Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, CBP, CBP Air and Marine Operations and USPIS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Miguel Loureiro, Case No. 18-CR-20164-MARTINEZ
On March 8, 2018, Miguel Loureiro, 27, of Homestead, was charged in a thirty-six-count indictment for participating in a conspiracy to take migratory birds for commercial purposes, selling and offering migratory birds for sale, and taking migratory birds.
According to the allegations contained in the indictment, beginning in January 2016 and ending in December 2017, Loureiro and a co-conspirator trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), White-crowned Sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Clay-colored Sparrows (Spizella palida), and Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, and NPS. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Hovary Muniz, Case No. 18-MJ-2496-SIMONTON
On April 3, 2018, Hovary Muniz, 42, of Miami, was charged by criminal complaint with knowingly selling and offering migratory birds for sale.
According to the criminal complaint, Muniz pled guilty in 2016 to smuggling migratory birds from Cuba into the United States in a fanny pack. In 2017 and 2018, while on probation for the wildlife trafficking offense, Muniz offered Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivacea), a Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena), and other migratory birds for sale.
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jaime Raich and Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Corbo Martinez, Case No. 17-CR-20596-WILLIAMS
On August 24, 2017, Alberto Iran Corbo Martinez, 38, of Hialeah, was charged in a three-count indictment with smuggling goods into the United States and using a false document.
According to the indictment, Corbo Martinez imported Cuban Bullfinches (Melopyrrha nigra) and a Yellow-faced Grassquit (Tiaris olivaceous) from Cuba. He concealed those importations by hiding the birds in hair curlers taped to his legs, beneath baggy pants, and by making false declarations on customs forms.
Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Reynaldo Mederos, Case No. 18-CR-20140-LENARD
On March 1, 2018, Reynaldo Mederos, 28, of Miami, was charged in a seven-count indictment with selling and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in July 2016 and ending in November 16, 2017, Mederos trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), and Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Carlos Hernandez, Case No. 17-CR-20759-MARTINEZ
On October 26, 2017, Carlos Hernandez, 34, of Miami, was charged in a six-count indictment with trapping, selling, and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in January 2016 and ending in April 2017, Hernandez trapped and trafficked in migratory birds, including Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and FWC in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
If convicted of the charged conduct, the defendants each face a possible maximum statutory sentence of 5 years in prison for the conspiracy charges and 2 years in prison for trafficking in migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
An indictment or a criminal complaint is an accusatory instrument that contains formal charges against a defendant. All persons charged in an indictment or criminal complaint are presumed innocent, unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
The public is encouraged to report any instances of illegal wildlife trapping and trafficking to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) at 888-404-3922 or by email or text to Tip@MyFWC.com.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the probation 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: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation 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
Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Luis J. Santiago, Special Agent in Charge, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Office of Law Enforcement, Southeast Region; Alfredo Escanio, Major/Regional Commander, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Division of Law Enforcement, South B Region; Martin G. Wade, Director, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations, Miami Air and Marine Branch; Pedro Ramos, Superintendent, Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks (NPS); and Antonio J. Gomez, Postal Inspector in Charge, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), Miami Division, announce the filing of federal charges against 6 defendants in 6 separate cases for their involvement with the trafficking of over 400 migratory birds.
In 1918, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for the protection of migratory birds. Now in its 100th year, the MBTA prohibits, inter alia, the pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, barter, purchase, shipping, exportation, and importation of migratory birds. Migratory birds are listed at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulation, Section 10.13.
Working independently and separately from each other, these six charged defendants used sophisticated methods to traffic protected wildlife, specifically migratory birds. The methods included bird traps augmented by electronic birdcall broadcast systems powered with solar panels and rechargeable batteries; baited bird traps spread throughout the region as collection points; the erection of mist nets at one end of a field during migration season and the operation of a truck from the other end of the field to flush hundreds of migratory birds into the mist nets; the strategic deployment of specially formulated adhesives to glue migratory birds to tree limbs and sticks; and the hunting of migratory birds, in particular the illegal hunting of raptors with rifles. They also used traditional smuggling techniques to unlawfully transport the captured wildlife. These techniques included the shipment of migratory birds to buyers across the country in boxes with hidden compartments; the use of a false name and address on airmail shipments; false statements on customs declarations; and the concealment of the protected wildlife in hair curlers taped to a defendant’s body, beneath baggy pants.
In some instances, the wildlife trafficking in these cases involved severe animal cruelty and resulted in injury to the birds. Some of the trafficked birds showed signs of having sustained injuries while attempting to flee captivity. Some of the birds, specifically some of the hawks, were actually dead at the time of sale and other birds died shortly after purchase. One defendant left the captured birds entangled in netting, where they were preyed upon by wild dogs and cats. Another defendant maimed some of the migratory birds by ripping out their tail feathers. A third defendant, believing that a Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) was a threat to his inventory of migratory birds for sale, threw the animal against a wall and affixed it to a wooden cross. The defendant filmed this activity and uploaded the images onto a private internet chat group that he used to advertise migratory birds for sale.
In the course of these investigations, undercover USFWS and FWC agents purchased and/or seized migratory birds from all six of these defendants. After a determination that the release of the seized wildlife is safe and appropriate, USFWS will return hundreds of these birds into the wild.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office stands alongside our law enforcement and community partners as we strive to protect our natural resources and wildlife, including the diverse migratory bird population, that make South Florida such a vibrant environmental sanctuary,” stated U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg. “Today’s announcement reinforces our continued commitment to the federal prosecution of individuals who pose a threat to our nation’s wildlife, in particular our protected bird species.”
"The 100th anniversary of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act is a good time to remind Americans of the benefits we all enjoy from a land that is rich in birds and all wildlife,” said Special Agent in Charge Luis Santiago, USFWS Southeast Region’s Office of Law Enforcement. “Our work enforcing this law and others recognizes the value Americans place on wildlife, and it is important to make sure that future generations can enjoy these as well.”
“We are honored to have been a part of these important enforcement efforts,” stated Major Alfredo Escanio, FWC Regional Commander. “We want to get the word out that these birds are protected, and ask the public to let us know if they see anyone trying to trap or sell these birds.”
“As fellow aviators, we at CBP Air and Marine Operations (AMO) were particularly excited to participate in this case, to help set these ‘ornery’ birds free to fly again. AMO uses its specialized capabilities to serve and protect the American people. That includes working with our partners to enforce hundreds of U.S. laws, including the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” said Jeff Maher, Deputy Director, CBP Air Operations at the Miami Air and Marine Branch.
"The American people are investing billions of dollars to restore the Everglades and this kind of illegal poaching activity cannot be tolerated,” stated NPS Superintendent Pedro Ramos. “I am grateful to all of our partner agencies, the investigators, and the Department of Justice professionals who have worked on these important cases. Through their hard work, not only are we able to protect important species of birds, but also protect the investments being made in Everglades restoration ultimately for the benefit of future generations."
“As shown through this announcement, violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty threaten the livelihood of innocent animals,” said Antonio J. Gomez, Inspector in Charge, USPIS Miami Division. “This case demonstrates that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to enforce all federal laws that are in place to protect U.S. residents and wildlife. We are proud that our collaborative efforts were successful in bringing justice to the animals horrifically harmed and removed from their natural habitats.”
Today’s announcement reaffirms the collective commitment of federal, state and local authorities to the prosecution of wildlife traffickers. The cases brought under this operation include:
United States v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, a/k/a “El Doctor,”
Case No. 18-CR-20141-MOORE
On March 1, 2018, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, 54, of Homestead, was charged in an eighteen-count indictment with selling, offering for sale, bartering, and offering to barter migratory birds.
According to the indictment, between May 2014 and November 2016, Rodriguez trafficked in migratory birds, including Puerto Rican Spindalises (Spindalis portoricensis), Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), Puerto Rican Bullfinches (Loxigilla portoricensis), Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivaceus), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Cooper’s Hawks (Accipiter cooperii), Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), Gray Catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), Summer Tanagers (Piranga rubra), Screech-Owls (genus Megascops), and Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, CBP, CBP Air and Marine Operations and USPIS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Miguel Loureiro, Case No. 18-CR-20164-MARTINEZ
On March 8, 2018, Miguel Loureiro, 27, of Homestead, was charged in a thirty-six-count indictment for participating in a conspiracy to take migratory birds for commercial purposes, selling and offering migratory birds for sale, and taking migratory birds.
According to the allegations contained in the indictment, beginning in January 2016 and ending in December 2017, Loureiro and a co-conspirator trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), White-crowned Sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Clay-colored Sparrows (Spizella palida), and Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, and NPS. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Hovary Muniz, Case No. 18-MJ-2496-SIMONTON
On April 3, 2018, Hovary Muniz, 42, of Miami, was charged by criminal complaint with knowingly selling and offering migratory birds for sale.
According to the criminal complaint, Muniz pled guilty in 2016 to smuggling migratory birds from Cuba into the United States in a fanny pack. In 2017 and 2018, while on probation for the wildlife trafficking offense, Muniz offered Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivacea), a Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena), and other migratory birds for sale.
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jaime Raich and Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Corbo Martinez, Case No. 17-CR-20596-WILLIAMS
On August 24, 2017, Alberto Iran Corbo Martinez, 38, of Hialeah, was charged in a three-count indictment with smuggling goods into the United States and using a false document.
According to the indictment, Corbo Martinez imported Cuban Bullfinches (Melopyrrha nigra) and a Yellow-faced Grassquit (Tiaris olivaceous) from Cuba. He concealed those importations by hiding the birds in hair curlers taped to his legs, beneath baggy pants, and by making false declarations on customs forms.
Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Reynaldo Mederos, Case No. 18-CR-20140-LENARD
On March 1, 2018, Reynaldo Mederos, 28, of Miami, was charged in a seven-count indictment with selling and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in July 2016 and ending in November 16, 2017, Mederos trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), and Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Carlos Hernandez, Case No. 17-CR-20759-MARTINEZ
On October 26, 2017, Carlos Hernandez, 34, of Miami, was charged in a six-count indictment with trapping, selling, and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in January 2016 and ending in April 2017, Hernandez trapped and trafficked in migratory birds, including Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and FWC in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
If convicted of the charged conduct, the defendants each face a possible maximum statutory sentence of 5 years in prison for the conspiracy charges and 2 years in prison for trafficking in migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
An indictment or a criminal complaint is an accusatory instrument that contains formal charges against a defendant. All persons charged in an indictment or criminal complaint are presumed innocent, unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
The public is encouraged to report any instances of illegal wildlife trapping and trafficking to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) at 888-404-3922 or by email or text to Tip@MyFWC.com.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.
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 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: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE3 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 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the fifth most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE5
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE5
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE5
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE5
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
Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Luis J. Santiago, Special Agent in Charge, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Office of Law Enforcement, Southeast Region; Alfredo Escanio, Major/Regional Commander, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Division of Law Enforcement, South B Region; Martin G. Wade, Director, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations, Miami Air and Marine Branch; Pedro Ramos, Superintendent, Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks (NPS); and Antonio J. Gomez, Postal Inspector in Charge, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), Miami Division, announce the filing of federal charges against 6 defendants in 6 separate cases for their involvement with the trafficking of over 400 migratory birds.
In 1918, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for the protection of migratory birds. Now in its 100th year, the MBTA prohibits, inter alia, the pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, barter, purchase, shipping, exportation, and importation of migratory birds. Migratory birds are listed at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulation, Section 10.13.
Working independently and separately from each other, these six charged defendants used sophisticated methods to traffic protected wildlife, specifically migratory birds. The methods included bird traps augmented by electronic birdcall broadcast systems powered with solar panels and rechargeable batteries; baited bird traps spread throughout the region as collection points; the erection of mist nets at one end of a field during migration season and the operation of a truck from the other end of the field to flush hundreds of migratory birds into the mist nets; the strategic deployment of specially formulated adhesives to glue migratory birds to tree limbs and sticks; and the hunting of migratory birds, in particular the illegal hunting of raptors with rifles. They also used traditional smuggling techniques to unlawfully transport the captured wildlife. These techniques included the shipment of migratory birds to buyers across the country in boxes with hidden compartments; the use of a false name and address on airmail shipments; false statements on customs declarations; and the concealment of the protected wildlife in hair curlers taped to a defendant’s body, beneath baggy pants.
In some instances, the wildlife trafficking in these cases involved severe animal cruelty and resulted in injury to the birds. Some of the trafficked birds showed signs of having sustained injuries while attempting to flee captivity. Some of the birds, specifically some of the hawks, were actually dead at the time of sale and other birds died shortly after purchase. One defendant left the captured birds entangled in netting, where they were preyed upon by wild dogs and cats. Another defendant maimed some of the migratory birds by ripping out their tail feathers. A third defendant, believing that a Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) was a threat to his inventory of migratory birds for sale, threw the animal against a wall and affixed it to a wooden cross. The defendant filmed this activity and uploaded the images onto a private internet chat group that he used to advertise migratory birds for sale.
In the course of these investigations, undercover USFWS and FWC agents purchased and/or seized migratory birds from all six of these defendants. After a determination that the release of the seized wildlife is safe and appropriate, USFWS will return hundreds of these birds into the wild.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office stands alongside our law enforcement and community partners as we strive to protect our natural resources and wildlife, including the diverse migratory bird population, that make South Florida such a vibrant environmental sanctuary,” stated U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg. “Today’s announcement reinforces our continued commitment to the federal prosecution of individuals who pose a threat to our nation’s wildlife, in particular our protected bird species.”
"The 100th anniversary of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act is a good time to remind Americans of the benefits we all enjoy from a land that is rich in birds and all wildlife,” said Special Agent in Charge Luis Santiago, USFWS Southeast Region’s Office of Law Enforcement. “Our work enforcing this law and others recognizes the value Americans place on wildlife, and it is important to make sure that future generations can enjoy these as well.”
“We are honored to have been a part of these important enforcement efforts,” stated Major Alfredo Escanio, FWC Regional Commander. “We want to get the word out that these birds are protected, and ask the public to let us know if they see anyone trying to trap or sell these birds.”
“As fellow aviators, we at CBP Air and Marine Operations (AMO) were particularly excited to participate in this case, to help set these ‘ornery’ birds free to fly again. AMO uses its specialized capabilities to serve and protect the American people. That includes working with our partners to enforce hundreds of U.S. laws, including the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” said Jeff Maher, Deputy Director, CBP Air Operations at the Miami Air and Marine Branch.
"The American people are investing billions of dollars to restore the Everglades and this kind of illegal poaching activity cannot be tolerated,” stated NPS Superintendent Pedro Ramos. “I am grateful to all of our partner agencies, the investigators, and the Department of Justice professionals who have worked on these important cases. Through their hard work, not only are we able to protect important species of birds, but also protect the investments being made in Everglades restoration ultimately for the benefit of future generations."
“As shown through this announcement, violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty threaten the livelihood of innocent animals,” said Antonio J. Gomez, Inspector in Charge, USPIS Miami Division. “This case demonstrates that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to enforce all federal laws that are in place to protect U.S. residents and wildlife. We are proud that our collaborative efforts were successful in bringing justice to the animals horrifically harmed and removed from their natural habitats.”
Today’s announcement reaffirms the collective commitment of federal, state and local authorities to the prosecution of wildlife traffickers. The cases brought under this operation include:
United States v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, a/k/a “El Doctor,”
Case No. 18-CR-20141-MOORE
On March 1, 2018, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, 54, of Homestead, was charged in an eighteen-count indictment with selling, offering for sale, bartering, and offering to barter migratory birds.
According to the indictment, between May 2014 and November 2016, Rodriguez trafficked in migratory birds, including Puerto Rican Spindalises (Spindalis portoricensis), Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), Puerto Rican Bullfinches (Loxigilla portoricensis), Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivaceus), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Cooper’s Hawks (Accipiter cooperii), Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), Gray Catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), Summer Tanagers (Piranga rubra), Screech-Owls (genus Megascops), and Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, CBP, CBP Air and Marine Operations and USPIS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Miguel Loureiro, Case No. 18-CR-20164-MARTINEZ
On March 8, 2018, Miguel Loureiro, 27, of Homestead, was charged in a thirty-six-count indictment for participating in a conspiracy to take migratory birds for commercial purposes, selling and offering migratory birds for sale, and taking migratory birds.
According to the allegations contained in the indictment, beginning in January 2016 and ending in December 2017, Loureiro and a co-conspirator trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), White-crowned Sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Clay-colored Sparrows (Spizella palida), and Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, and NPS. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Hovary Muniz, Case No. 18-MJ-2496-SIMONTON
On April 3, 2018, Hovary Muniz, 42, of Miami, was charged by criminal complaint with knowingly selling and offering migratory birds for sale.
According to the criminal complaint, Muniz pled guilty in 2016 to smuggling migratory birds from Cuba into the United States in a fanny pack. In 2017 and 2018, while on probation for the wildlife trafficking offense, Muniz offered Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivacea), a Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena), and other migratory birds for sale.
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jaime Raich and Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Corbo Martinez, Case No. 17-CR-20596-WILLIAMS
On August 24, 2017, Alberto Iran Corbo Martinez, 38, of Hialeah, was charged in a three-count indictment with smuggling goods into the United States and using a false document.
According to the indictment, Corbo Martinez imported Cuban Bullfinches (Melopyrrha nigra) and a Yellow-faced Grassquit (Tiaris olivaceous) from Cuba. He concealed those importations by hiding the birds in hair curlers taped to his legs, beneath baggy pants, and by making false declarations on customs forms.
Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Reynaldo Mederos, Case No. 18-CR-20140-LENARD
On March 1, 2018, Reynaldo Mederos, 28, of Miami, was charged in a seven-count indictment with selling and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in July 2016 and ending in November 16, 2017, Mederos trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), and Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Carlos Hernandez, Case No. 17-CR-20759-MARTINEZ
On October 26, 2017, Carlos Hernandez, 34, of Miami, was charged in a six-count indictment with trapping, selling, and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in January 2016 and ending in April 2017, Hernandez trapped and trafficked in migratory birds, including Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and FWC in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
If convicted of the charged conduct, the defendants each face a possible maximum statutory sentence of 5 years in prison for the conspiracy charges and 2 years in prison for trafficking in migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
An indictment or a criminal complaint is an accusatory instrument that contains formal charges against a defendant. All persons charged in an indictment or criminal complaint are presumed innocent, unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
The public is encouraged to report any instances of illegal wildlife trapping and trafficking to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) at 888-404-3922 or by email or text to Tip@MyFWC.com.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Benjamin G. Greenberg, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Luis J. Santiago, Special Agent in Charge, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Office of Law Enforcement, Southeast Region; Alfredo Escanio, Major/Regional Commander, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Division of Law Enforcement, South B Region; Martin G. Wade, Director, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations, Miami Air and Marine Branch; Pedro Ramos, Superintendent, Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks (NPS); and Antonio J. Gomez, Postal Inspector in Charge, United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), Miami Division, announce the filing of federal charges against 6 defendants in 6 separate cases for their involvement with the trafficking of over 400 migratory birds.
In 1918, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) for the protection of migratory birds. Now in its 100th year, the MBTA prohibits, inter alia, the pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, barter, purchase, shipping, exportation, and importation of migratory birds. Migratory birds are listed at Title 50, Code of Federal Regulation, Section 10.13.
Working independently and separately from each other, these six charged defendants used sophisticated methods to traffic protected wildlife, specifically migratory birds. The methods included bird traps augmented by electronic birdcall broadcast systems powered with solar panels and rechargeable batteries; baited bird traps spread throughout the region as collection points; the erection of mist nets at one end of a field during migration season and the operation of a truck from the other end of the field to flush hundreds of migratory birds into the mist nets; the strategic deployment of specially formulated adhesives to glue migratory birds to tree limbs and sticks; and the hunting of migratory birds, in particular the illegal hunting of raptors with rifles. They also used traditional smuggling techniques to unlawfully transport the captured wildlife. These techniques included the shipment of migratory birds to buyers across the country in boxes with hidden compartments; the use of a false name and address on airmail shipments; false statements on customs declarations; and the concealment of the protected wildlife in hair curlers taped to a defendant’s body, beneath baggy pants.
In some instances, the wildlife trafficking in these cases involved severe animal cruelty and resulted in injury to the birds. Some of the trafficked birds showed signs of having sustained injuries while attempting to flee captivity. Some of the birds, specifically some of the hawks, were actually dead at the time of sale and other birds died shortly after purchase. One defendant left the captured birds entangled in netting, where they were preyed upon by wild dogs and cats. Another defendant maimed some of the migratory birds by ripping out their tail feathers. A third defendant, believing that a Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) was a threat to his inventory of migratory birds for sale, threw the animal against a wall and affixed it to a wooden cross. The defendant filmed this activity and uploaded the images onto a private internet chat group that he used to advertise migratory birds for sale.
In the course of these investigations, undercover USFWS and FWC agents purchased and/or seized migratory birds from all six of these defendants. After a determination that the release of the seized wildlife is safe and appropriate, USFWS will return hundreds of these birds into the wild.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office stands alongside our law enforcement and community partners as we strive to protect our natural resources and wildlife, including the diverse migratory bird population, that make South Florida such a vibrant environmental sanctuary,” stated U.S. Attorney Benjamin G. Greenberg. “Today’s announcement reinforces our continued commitment to the federal prosecution of individuals who pose a threat to our nation’s wildlife, in particular our protected bird species.”
"The 100th anniversary of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act is a good time to remind Americans of the benefits we all enjoy from a land that is rich in birds and all wildlife,” said Special Agent in Charge Luis Santiago, USFWS Southeast Region’s Office of Law Enforcement. “Our work enforcing this law and others recognizes the value Americans place on wildlife, and it is important to make sure that future generations can enjoy these as well.”
“We are honored to have been a part of these important enforcement efforts,” stated Major Alfredo Escanio, FWC Regional Commander. “We want to get the word out that these birds are protected, and ask the public to let us know if they see anyone trying to trap or sell these birds.”
“As fellow aviators, we at CBP Air and Marine Operations (AMO) were particularly excited to participate in this case, to help set these ‘ornery’ birds free to fly again. AMO uses its specialized capabilities to serve and protect the American people. That includes working with our partners to enforce hundreds of U.S. laws, including the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” said Jeff Maher, Deputy Director, CBP Air Operations at the Miami Air and Marine Branch.
"The American people are investing billions of dollars to restore the Everglades and this kind of illegal poaching activity cannot be tolerated,” stated NPS Superintendent Pedro Ramos. “I am grateful to all of our partner agencies, the investigators, and the Department of Justice professionals who have worked on these important cases. Through their hard work, not only are we able to protect important species of birds, but also protect the investments being made in Everglades restoration ultimately for the benefit of future generations."
“As shown through this announcement, violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty threaten the livelihood of innocent animals,” said Antonio J. Gomez, Inspector in Charge, USPIS Miami Division. “This case demonstrates that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to work tirelessly with our partners to enforce all federal laws that are in place to protect U.S. residents and wildlife. We are proud that our collaborative efforts were successful in bringing justice to the animals horrifically harmed and removed from their natural habitats.”
Today’s announcement reaffirms the collective commitment of federal, state and local authorities to the prosecution of wildlife traffickers. The cases brought under this operation include:
United States v. Juan Carlos Rodriguez, a/k/a “El Doctor,”
Case No. 18-CR-20141-MOORE
On March 1, 2018, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, 54, of Homestead, was charged in an eighteen-count indictment with selling, offering for sale, bartering, and offering to barter migratory birds.
According to the indictment, between May 2014 and November 2016, Rodriguez trafficked in migratory birds, including Puerto Rican Spindalises (Spindalis portoricensis), Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis), Puerto Rican Bullfinches (Loxigilla portoricensis), Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivaceus), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Cooper’s Hawks (Accipiter cooperii), Bobolinks (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Red-shouldered Hawks (Buteo lineatus), Gray Catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), Summer Tanagers (Piranga rubra), Screech-Owls (genus Megascops), and Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, CBP, CBP Air and Marine Operations and USPIS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Miguel Loureiro, Case No. 18-CR-20164-MARTINEZ
On March 8, 2018, Miguel Loureiro, 27, of Homestead, was charged in a thirty-six-count indictment for participating in a conspiracy to take migratory birds for commercial purposes, selling and offering migratory birds for sale, and taking migratory birds.
According to the allegations contained in the indictment, beginning in January 2016 and ending in December 2017, Loureiro and a co-conspirator trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea), Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), White-crowned Sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), Clay-colored Sparrows (Spizella palida), and Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS, FWC, and NPS. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Hovary Muniz, Case No. 18-MJ-2496-SIMONTON
On April 3, 2018, Hovary Muniz, 42, of Miami, was charged by criminal complaint with knowingly selling and offering migratory birds for sale.
According to the criminal complaint, Muniz pled guilty in 2016 to smuggling migratory birds from Cuba into the United States in a fanny pack. In 2017 and 2018, while on probation for the wildlife trafficking offense, Muniz offered Yellow-faced Grassquits (Tiaris olivacea), a Lazuli Bunting (Passerina amoena), and other migratory birds for sale.
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jaime Raich and Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Corbo Martinez, Case No. 17-CR-20596-WILLIAMS
On August 24, 2017, Alberto Iran Corbo Martinez, 38, of Hialeah, was charged in a three-count indictment with smuggling goods into the United States and using a false document.
According to the indictment, Corbo Martinez imported Cuban Bullfinches (Melopyrrha nigra) and a Yellow-faced Grassquit (Tiaris olivaceous) from Cuba. He concealed those importations by hiding the birds in hair curlers taped to his legs, beneath baggy pants, and by making false declarations on customs forms.
Mr. Greenberg commends the investigative efforts of the USFWS and CBP in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Watts-FitzGerald.
United States v. Reynaldo Mederos, Case No. 18-CR-20140-LENARD
On March 1, 2018, Reynaldo Mederos, 28, of Miami, was charged in a seven-count indictment with selling and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in July 2016 and ending in November 16, 2017, Mederos trafficked in migratory birds, including Indigo Buntings (Passerina cyanea), Painted Buntings (Passerina ciris), and Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
United States v. Carlos Hernandez, Case No. 17-CR-20759-MARTINEZ
On October 26, 2017, Carlos Hernandez, 34, of Miami, was charged in a six-count indictment with trapping, selling, and offering to sell migratory birds.
According to the indictment and publicly available documents, beginning in January 2016 and ending in April 2017, Hernandez trapped and trafficked in migratory birds, including Blue Grosbeaks (Passerina caerulea).
Mr. Greenberg commended the investigative efforts of the USFWS and FWC in this matter. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
If convicted of the charged conduct, the defendants each face a possible maximum statutory sentence of 5 years in prison for the conspiracy charges and 2 years in prison for trafficking in migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
An indictment or a criminal complaint is an accusatory instrument that contains formal charges against a defendant. All persons charged in an indictment or criminal complaint are presumed innocent, unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
The public is encouraged to report any instances of illegal wildlife trapping and trafficking to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) at 888-404-3922 or by email or text to Tip@MyFWC.com.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The 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
Orlando, FL – A Florida man pleaded guilty today to conspiring to defraud the United States, filing a false tax return and to aiding and assisting the preparation of a false tax return.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Rafael Ramos, of Orlando, recruited clients and prepared tax returns on their behalf that falsely claimed banks and other financial institutions had withheld large amounts of taxes from the clients’ income, thereby entitling them to refunds from the IRS. To further the scheme, Ramos and his co-conspirators filed false documents with the IRS, purporting to have been issued by the banks, to support the false withholding information reported on the returns.
When the IRS initiated proceedings to collect the fraudulently-issued refunds, Ramos held meetings with his clients and attempted to obstruct the IRS’s efforts by providing them with frivolous correspondence to send to the IRS, instructing clients to falsely inform the IRS that they self-prepared their returns and telling clients to move funds out of their bank accounts to avoid IRS levies. In total, Ramos’s scheme caused a tax loss to the IRS of over $1.15 million.
Ramos is scheduled to be sentenced Nov. 30 and faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison for conspiracy and three years in prison for each false return count. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida made the announcement.
IRS-Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.
Trial Attorneys Jeffrey McLellan, Ezra Spiro and Caroline Pearson of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Livanos for the Middle District of Florida are prosecuting the case.
Orlando, Florida – United States Attorney Roger B. Handberg announces that the United States has civilly forfeited $2,462,000 in proceeds obtained from a wire fraud scheme that involved the takeover of a business email account. The forfeited funds are being returned to the fraud victim.
According to court documents, the victim, Company 1 (“C1”), sells comprehensive lead frame products and material solutions to the semiconductor packaging industry. In April 2022, C1 received an email requesting a change of payment information from someone it believed worked at its business partner, Company 2 (“C2”), a heavy equipment manufacturer from which C1 regularly purchases lead frame equipment. The email came from what appeared to be C2’s true email address. The email explained that C2 was unable to accept payment into its regular account due to a “fiscal year update,” and instead, asked C1 to make future payments to a different account. This email was a fraudulent communication intended to mislead C1 into unwittingly transferring funds to a criminal entity, rather than C2. As a result of the fraudulent communication, C1 wired $2,462,000 million to the account identified by the fraudster.
After realizing that C2 had not sent the email requesting the change, C1 reported the fraud to its bank, which ultimately caused the $2,462,000 million to be frozen. Agents from the United States Secret Service (USSS) then tracked down the sole signatory of the account that received the funds, S.T., who informed USSS agents that he has never done business with C1 or C2 and he did not believe he was the rightful owner of the funds. S.T. claimed that in approximately January 2022, he met a group of individuals at a Bitcoin conference and agreed to contract his services to the group. S.T. provided his banking information to this group in order to receive payment for the work he was going to perform. S.T. stated that he communicated with the group primarily though the WeChat messaging application, and that when he contacted them about the funds, they denied any fraud-related activity. Because C1 and its bank acted quickly, law enforcement was able to seize and forfeit the full amount transferred by C1.
United States Attorney Handberg has requested and received permission from the Department of Justice’s Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Section (MLARS) to remit the forfeited funds back to the victim. MLARS administers the Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program victim compensation process to ensure forfeited funds are returned to victims. U.S. Attorney Handberg noted that “civil forfeiture is an important tool frequently used by federal law enforcement to benefit victims.” In fact, in fiscal year 2023, the Middle District of Florida obtained permission to use almost $44 million in forfeited funds to compensate crime victims. Since 2000, more than $11 billion in forfeited funds has been returned to victims through federal forfeiture. In many cases like this one, criminal forfeiture is not an option because law enforcement is not able to identify the perpetrator even after the criminal proceeds are recovered. U.S. Attorney Handberg thanks MLARS for its assistance in facilitating the distribution in this matter.
“This is another example of how fraudsters are getting more sophisticated with their schemes to steal money,” said Caroline O’Brien Buster, Special Agent in Charge with the Orlando Field Office. “With the cooperation of our partners in the business community, we were able to quickly freeze the funds and assist with returning them to the victim. The United States Secret Service will continue to investigate these and other types of financial fraud in our community and around the nation.”
Business Email Compromise (BEC) is a sophisticated fraud scheme targeting businesses that use wire transfers as a form of payment. The BEC scheme affects large global corporations, governments, and individuals, with current global daily losses estimated at approximately $8 million. Criminals compromise legitimate business email accounts through various hacking schemes, including social engineering and the use of malware. Once a business email account is compromised, a fraudulent email is sent directing the recipient of the email to unwittingly transfer funds to an illicit account. Alternatively, they create “spoofed” email domain names to trick people into thinking they know the sender. An email domain name is the part of an email address that comes after the “@” symbol. In email spoofing, one character in an email address is often changed or missing, thereby tricking the recipient. Criminals obtain and use privileged information to convince BEC email recipients that the transfer instructions are legitimate.
To avoid becoming the victim of a BEC scheme, verify email addresses are accurate when checking mail on a cellphone or other mobile device before you open any attachments or follow any instructions and never make any payment changes without verifying with the intended recipient by phone or in person. If you think you have been a victim of a BEC scheme, 1) immediately contact your bank to request a recall or reversal as well as a Hold Harmless Letter or Letter of Indemnity; and 2) file a detailed complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center at www.ic3.gov. The Internet Crime Complaint Center, is run by the FBI and serves as the country’s hub for reporting cybercrime. Visit www.ic3.gov for updated information regarding BEC trends as well as other cyber fraud schemes.
This case was investigated by the United States Secret Service. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Jennifer M. Harrington.
Orlando, FL – A Florida man was sentenced to 21 months in prison for obstructing the IRS in connection with his use of the “Note Program,” a tax fraud scheme.According to court documents and statements made in court, from 2015 to 2018, Arthur Grimes, of Ocoee and Orlando, was a client of a tax fraud scheme promoted by Jasen Harvey and Christopher Johnson. The scheme involved Harvey and Johnson filing false tax returns for clients that claimed that large nonexistent income tax withholdings had been paid to the IRS and sought substantial refunds based on those purported withholdings. Grimes participated in the scheme by causing four false income tax returns prepared by Harvey to be filed that sought refunds totaling $627,587 of which the IRS paid approximately $270,000. When the IRS attempted to recover a refund issued to Grimes based on one of those returns, Grimes made false statements and submitted false documents to an IRS revenue officer and transferred funds to a nominee bank account.Harvey and Johnson previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the IRS and were respectively sentenced to 48 months in prison and 37 months in prison.In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. for the Middle District of Florida ordered Grimes to serve one year of supervised release and to pay approximately $238,973 in restitution to the United States.Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida made the announcement.IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the case.Trial Attorneys Melissa Siskind, Jeffrey McLellan and Caroline Pearson of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane Hu for the Middle District of Florida prosecuted the case.
Orlando, FL – Two Florida men were sentenced today for their involvement in the “Note Program,” a tax fraud scheme. Jasen Harvey, of Tampa, was sentenced to 48 months in prison and Christopher Johnson, of Orlando, was sentenced to 37 months in prison for conspiring to defraud the United States.According to court documents and statements made in court, from 2015 to 2018, Johnson and Harvey conspired to promote a scheme in which Harvey and others prepared tax returns for clients that claimed that large, nonexistent income tax withholdings had been paid to the IRS on behalf of clients and sought large refunds based on those purported withholdings. The conspirators charged clients fees and required the clients to pay a share of the fraudulently obtained refunds to them.Overall, the defendants claimed over $3 million in fraudulent refunds on their clients’ returns, of which the IRS paid about $1.5 million.In addition to the terms of imprisonment, U.S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. for the Middle District of Florida ordered Johnson to serve three years of supervised release and to pay $864,117.42 in restitution to the United States. Judge Dalton Jr. ordered Harvey to serve three years of supervised release and pay $785,858.42 in restitution.Co-defendant Arthur Grimes is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 13, 2025.Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida made the announcement.IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the case.Trial Attorneys Melissa Siskind, Jeffrey McLellan and Caroline Pearson of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane Hu for the Middle District of Florida prosecuted the case.
A federal grand jury in Orlando returned an indictment, unsealed yesterday, charging three Florida men with crimes related to their respective roles in a tax refund fraud scheme.
According to the indictment, from 2015 to 2018, Christopher Johnson, of Orlando, and Jasen Harvey, of Tampa, allegedly conspired to promote a scheme in which Harvey and others prepared returns for clients falsely reporting large amounts of income tax withholdings to the IRS, resulting in tax refunds to which the clients were not otherwise entitled. Johnson and Harvey allegedly charged each client a fee per return – Johnson allegedly did not report his portion of those fees on his personal tax returns.
The indictment also charged that in January 2020, a federal judge issued an order enjoining Harvey from preparing tax returns for others but, despite the court’s injunction, Harvey allegedly continued to prepare and file returns from 2020 to 2021.
In addition, the indictment alleges that Arthur Grimes, of Orlando and Ocoee, Florida, participated in the scheme and caused to be filed four false income tax returns prepared by Harvey. When the IRS attempted to recover a refund allegedly issued to Grimes based on a false income tax return, Grimes allegedly (1) made false statements to an IRS revenue officer, (2) submitted false documents to the IRS, (3) transferred funds to a nominee bank account and (4) otherwise obstructed IRS collection efforts.
Johnson, Harvey and Grimes are each charged with aiding in the preparation of false tax returns, which carries a maximum statutory penalty of three years in prison; Johnson and Harvey are charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, which carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison; Johnson is charged with filing false personal tax returns, which carries a maximum statutory penalty of three years in prison; Harvey is charged with criminal contempt, which carries a maximum statutory penalty of life in prison; and Grimes is charged with corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of the internal revenue laws, which carries a maximum statutory penalty of three years. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida made the announcement.
IRS-Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.
Trial Attorneys Melissa Siskind, Jeffrey McLellan and Caroline Pearson of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane Hu for the Middle District of Florida are prosecuting the case.
An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Orlando, Florida – U.S. District Judge Paul Byron has sentenced Jeremy Kee Anderson (50, Minnesota) to 12 years and 7 months in federal prison for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and mail and wire fraud. Anderson had pleaded guilty on February 26, 2021.
According to court documents, Anderson led a conspiracy that defrauded more than 200 victims, most of them elderly, and who had invested a good portion of their life savings, out of more than $10.3 million through investments offered in connection with a company called Tri-Med Corporation. Anderson was founder and principal owner of Tri-Med Corporation.
The investment scheme involved the alleged purchase of medical receivables by Tri-Med, and involved services that were provided to accident victims who were represented by personal injury attorneys. Payment of those medical receivables was supposed to be made from the proceeds of litigation or an insurance claim made against a general liability or automobile insurance policy. Each of the medical receivables was also supposed to be secured by a “Letter of Protection,” a letter that is provided by a patient’s personal injury attorney to a medical services professional as an incentive to provide services to a patient. The letter is a contract involving a patient, the patient’s attorney, and the medical services provider by which the patient and attorney agree to pay all or part of the total billed by the medical services provider from the proceeds of any pre-suit settlement, lawsuit settlement, or judgment that the patient may obtain.
To fund Tri-Med’s alleged purchases of medical receivables, Anderson and his conspirators solicited individuals to participate in an “investment program” in which investors’ money would be used by Tri-Med to buy medical receivables “backed” by letters of protection. As part of their solicitations, Anderson and his conspirators represented to investors that that their investments were safe and that investor funds would be held in a trust account that was controlled by an attorney. To assure investors that their investments were secure, Tri-Med claimed that it would transfer its interest in the letter of protection to the investor in a document called an “Assignment of Interest Certificate.” Those representations were false.
Of the more than $17 million raised from over 200 investors, only approximately $2.7 million was ever transferred from Tri-Med to the attorney’s trust account. The vast majority of the funds raised from investors never made it to that account. Over $6.5 million was paid to the sales people and the operators of Tri-Med or was used by them to benefit themselves or pay business expenses, while approximately $2.3 million was paid as distributions to investors as “interest payments” to make them believe that their investments were profitable. In fact, Tri-Med did not purchase enough medical receivables to secure the incoming investments, so it fabricated “Assignment of Interest Certificates.” The result was that more than 200 victims lost over $10.3 million in this scheme.
Anderson is the fourth person to be charged and sentenced as part of this conspiracy. Previously, the following individuals were charged and sentenced to federal prison terms for their roles in this conspiracy: Anthony Nicholas, Jr. (63, Hudson) received 11 years and 3 months and Eric Ager (78, Orlando) and Irwin Ager (84, Orlando) each were sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
“The Secret Service, along with our many law enforcement partners, including the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, remains committed to bringing fraudsters such as Anderson to justice,” said U.S. Secret Service Special Agent in Charge Caroline O’Brien Buster. “To prey on our most vulnerable citizens is egregious, amoral and incredibly cruel. The Secret Service will not tolerate such crimes and will actively pursue justice, especially in these cases.”
This case was investigated by the United States Secret Service and the State of Florida’s Office of Financial Regulation. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Shawn P. Napier and Roger B. Handberg, III.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: 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
LOS ANGELES – A San Fernando Valley woman has been sentenced to 240 months in federal prison for fraudulently obtaining ownership of real estate and money via identity theft and forged power-of-attorney forms in a near-$3.9 million scheme that included dismembering and disposing of a dead body to prevent the discovery of this victim’s death, the Justice Department announced today.
Caroline Joanne Herrling, 44, a.k.a. “Carrie Phenix,” of West Hills, was sentenced late Friday by United States District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. Judge Frimpong also ordered Herrling to pay $3,887,051 in restitution.
“This defendant’s misconduct was both greedy and grotesque, causing profound pain to the victims and their loved ones,” said United States Attorney Martin Estrada. “There must be serious consequences for those who prey on vulnerable communities, such as older adults, and my office will remain steadfast in bringing these offenders to justice.”
“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service will continue to work diligently with our local law enforcement partners to protect our communities from criminals who target our most vulnerable population,” said Inspector in Charge Carroll Harris of the Los Angeles Division. “Today’s sentencing shows that justice will be served to those who commit such criminal acts.”
“The LAPD would like to thank our federal partners at the US Postal Inspection Service and the United States Attorney’s Office, without whom a resolution in this case would not have been possible,” said Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton.
According to court documents, Herrling and her co-conspirators preyed on vulnerable victims by searching for properties in affluent neighborhoods that appeared unkempt. For example, Herrling used online mapping programs and visited nicer neighborhoods to search for algae-filled swimming pools or overgrown shrubs to identify houses with vulnerable victims who were unable to care for their properties.
After finding such a home in Sherman Oaks in 2020, Herrling and her co-conspirators broke into the residence, where an elderly victim resided. At some point in September 2020, the victim died – investigators are uncertain how – and they believe that Herrling and others took over the property while his body decomposed in his home. Rather than reporting his death, Herrling and others in the conspiracy left his body in his house while they looted his assets. Herrling used a forged power-of-attorney form so she could pretend to act on the victim’s behalf while stealing his real estate and financial accounts.
In October 2021, law enforcement began investigating the case when neighbors reported the victim missing. According to court documents, Herrling identified herself to police as a close friend of the victim and his family. She also was listed as the trustee of the victim’s family trust – which purportedly had been created by the victim’s mother, who died in June 2017 – but in fact was a forgery. She told police that the victim had moved from Sherman Oaks to Carpinteria, which was not true because the victim was already dead.
After Herrling learned of the police investigation into the missing victim, her co-conspirators and she executed an elaborate scheme to ensure his body was never found and his death remain unreported, this to support the idea that the victim agreed to distribute his assets to Herrling and her co-conspirators.
Herrling and her co-conspirators moved the victim’s body to her apartment in West Los Angeles, where they attempted to dissolve his body in a concoction of chemicals, investigators found. When that did not work, Herrling and her co-conspirators dismembered the body, placed the pieces in vacuum-sealed bags and moved the victim’s body to the Bay Area. Another member of the conspiracy who owned a sailboat assisted in disposing of the mutilated remains of the deceased victim into San Francisco Bay, the investigation revealed. The victim’s remains have never been found.
During Friday’s sentencing hearing, Judge Frimpong said this victim was “a man and a human being,” but Herrling “did not see that” and instead treated him “like a cash register.”
The deceased victim was the listed executor and beneficiary to the will of another victim, but this document was another forgery that Herrling claimed to have “discovered” in a safe deposit box rented by the deceased victim’s mother, court papers state. Based on this forged will, the missing victim was to inherit an estate worth more than $1.7 million – assets that ultimately fell under Herrling’s control as the trustee for his estate.
Herrling and her co-conspirators also defrauded a third victim and sold his home without his consent by using a conspirator with fake identity documents to pose as the victim. Herrling set up accounts to receive the proceeds of the sale of this victim’s real estate, a transaction that generated approximately $1.5 million. According to court documents, this victim, who was already suffering from mental health issues, took his own life after losing his home. Herrling later used her ill-gotten gains to purchase a residence in West Hills.
The total loss in this case was $3,887,051.
Herrling pleaded guilty in March 2023 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. She has been in federal custody since January 2023.
One of Herrling’s accomplices – Matthew Jason Kroth, 50, of Tarzana – pleaded guilty in October 2023 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He faces up to 20 years in federal prison for wire fraud, and up to 40 years for methamphetamine trafficking when he is sentenced on June 7.
The United States Postal Inspection Service and the Los Angeles Police Department, Valley Bureau Homicide are investigating this matter. Significant assistance was provided by the Los Angeles Joint Regional Intelligence Center.
Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Brown of the Major Frauds Section prosecuted this case.
NEW BERN – The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Robert J. Higdon, Jr., District Attorney Scott Thomas, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announce the arrests yesterday of eight defendants pursuant to three federal indictments for drug and firearms charges.
A 35-count indictment was returned by a federal grand jury on October 17, 2017. The indictment charges nine defendants with conspiracy to distribute heroin and marijuana and various drug offenses, one defendant with operating a continuing criminal enterprise, and three defendants with firearm offenses arising out of a Title III wiretap investigation in Craven County.
The defendants include:
CALVIN MARK WILSON, aka “Bali,” 33, of New Bern, NC
MARIO CORRELLUS BARGNEARE, aka “Rio,” 38, of New Bern, NC
WILLIE FRANK JAMES AHERN, aka “White, White Bread, Dribs,” 38, of Bayboro, NC
DEREK JACQUAN WIGGINS, aka “DJ,” 37, of New Bern, NC
ROY JAMES NOLON, aka “Henny,” 20, of New Bern, NC
MICHAEL QUALEEK VELASQUEZ, aka “Moo Moo,” 22, of New Bern, NC (currently housed in the Bertie Correctional Institution)
LAMAR HOSEA WIGGINS, aka “LB,” 39, of New Bern, NC
LASHAWNNA JAQUETTE MCCOTTER, aka “Flossy,” 46, of New Bern, NC
LATREKA DENISE HARDESTY, aka “T,” 26, of New Bern, NC
Additionally, ADRIENNE MICHELLE HALL, 34, of New Bern, NC, was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute heroin and for possession of heroin. CAROLINE LOUISE HUGHES, 27, of Alliance, NC, also faces a 3-count indictment for conspiracy to distribute heroin and distributing heroin.
In addition to the federal arrests, three other individuals were arrested by the New Bern Police Department for state drug and firearm offenses. Suquanna Robinson, 33, of New Bern, NC, was arrested for possession with intent to sell and deliver heroin and maintaining a dwelling. Dwayne Stallings, 32, of Cove City, was arrested for possession of a stolen firearm. Finally, Nassar Mack, 36, of New Bern, NC, was arrested for possession of a firearm by a felon.
“The heroin epidemic is affecting the lives of citizens here in North Carolina and throughout the nation,” commented U.S. Attorney Higdon. “In fact we are losing more than 3 North Carolinians to drug overdoses every day. And, heroin and opioids are driving a significant portion of this devastating problem. This prosecution reflects the commitment of this office and that of our state and local law enforcement partners in combatting this crisis and targeting those who put these dangerous drugs on the streets.”
District Attorney Scott Thomas said, “This coordinated investigation between local, state and federal agencies is part of our ongoing effort to combat violence and illegal drug activity in our area. The fight against crime requires cooperation between law enforcement agencies and prosecutors at the state and federal levels to be successful. My office will continue to work closely with the United States Attorney’s Office as these and similar cases are investigated and prosecuted in the future.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (ATF) Special Agent in Charge CJ Hyman stated, “One of ATF’s primary missions is to combat violent crime, and this investigation is a great example of the positive results that can be accomplished when we collaborate with our law enforcement partners to accomplish the common goal of making our communities safer.”
“I applaud the spirit of cooperation that exists at local, state and federal levels”, said New Bern's Chief of Police, Toussaint E. Summers, Jr., as he remarked on the arrests yesterday that represented a coordinated effort of more than two years. “The citizens of the City of New Bern, Craven County and eastern North Carolina can be assured that the law enforcement community as well as federal and state prosecutors will work together to use all available resources to remove drug traffickers from the streets of our community.”
All but two of the defendants charged in the federal indictments are in custody pending trial. DEREK WIGGINS and LAMAR WIGGINS remain at large.
In addition to the arrests, law enforcement executed seven search warrants of residences in Craven County as part of a multi-year investigation into the violent drug trafficking organization. This case was brought as a part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Operation entitled Operation 190.
The charges and allegations contained in the indictments are merely accusations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
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, Trentwood Police Department, Carteret County Sheriff’s Office, Morehead City Police Department, and with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
RALEIGH, N.C. – A Rocky Mount man was sentenced yesterday to 264 months in prison for possession of marijuana and cocaine and for possession of multiple firearms in furtherance of a drug distribution offense. On October 20, 2022, Charven Keivon Gorham pled guilty to the charges.
According to court documents and other information presented in court, Rocky Mount Police Department officers received information that Gorham, a validated Blood gang member, was selling drugs out of his residence in Rocky Mount. Officers executed a search warrant at Gorham’s residence on May 27, 2020 after having conducted several controlled purchases of drugs from that location. During the search, officers seized marijuana, cocaine, over $13,000 in U.S. Currency, and two handguns. On October 18, 2021, a second search warrant at Gorham’s residence led to the seizure of another handgun and additional marijuana and cocaine. At the time of these search warrants, Gorham had multiple prior convictions for drug and weapons offenses in Nash County.
“This is a welcomed conviction and should serve as a reminder to those who would involve themselves in gun crimes and or attempt to sell drugs in Rocky Mount, that this criminal activity will not be tolerated,” said Rocky Mount Police Chief Robert Hassell. “We value our partnerships with our law enforcement partners and will take cases federally whenever possible to ensure these offenders are taken off our streets. We will continue to focus on drug, guns, and gangs within the city and make our city one of the safest places to live.”
This conviction comes as part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (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.
Michael Easley, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III. Rocky Mount Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives investigated the case and Assistant U.S. Attorney Caroline Webb 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. 5:21-CR-161-D.