Score:   1
Docket Number:   CD-CA  2:19-cr-00018
Case Name:   USA v. Antrim et al
  Press Releases:
          LOS ANGELES – A Walnut man was sentenced today to 168 months in federal prison for orchestrating a $2 million armed robbery of a commercial marijuana warehouse where over half a ton of marijuana was stolen with the help of a corrupt Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputy.

          Christopher Myung Kim, 30, was sentenced by United States District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who also ordered him to pay a $500,000 fine.

          Following a four-day trial in November 2019, a jury found Kim guilty of five felonies: conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

          Kim had worked at the downtown Los Angeles warehouse for years, but a dispute with its owners left him “bitterly disgruntled,” according to court documents. Kim left his job just weeks before the robbery and conspired with LASD Deputy Marc Antrim, 42, of South El Monte, to orchestrate the raid both for profit and to get revenge against his own bosses. Antrim was assigned to the LASD station in Temple City at the time.

          Days before the robbery, Kim supplied Antrim with inside information about the robbery, including key details about the warehouse’s layout, operation and security. Kim also gave Antrim the warehouse’s blueprints, noting where security guards likely would be stationed and which rooms Antrim and their co-conspirators should “hit” to ensure that the most valuable items were stolen.

          At approximately 3 a.m. on October 29, 2018, Antrim and six co-conspirators began to rob the marijuana distribution warehouse. Antrim was dressed as an armed deputy and flashed his badge and a fake search warrant to gain access to the warehouse. He then detained the warehouse’s security guards in a cage in the back of an LASD Ford Explorer.

          During the two-hour robbery, Antrim and the fake law enforcement team stole more than half a ton of marijuana, two large commercial safes containing more than $600,000 in cash and money orders, and other items of value from the warehouse.

          Hours after the robbery, Antrim drove a rental truck to a storage facility in Walnut, where Kim had rented a storage unit the day of the robbery. Antrim and co-conspirator Kevin McBride, 44, of Glendora, delivered $1.5 million dollars’ worth of stolen marijuana and marijuana products to Kim to resell for profit.

          In the weeks following the robbery, Kim worked diligently to sell off the marijuana, trying to make as much money as he could from it and also to exact revenge against his former employers.

          Kim has been in federal custody since his conviction in November 2019.

          “Although not physically present during the robbery…Kim was integral to its planning, success, and profitability,” prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memorandum. “He was a leader, organizer, and knowingly made this robbery possible.”

          Antrim was arrested in November 2018 and pleaded guilty in March 2019 to multiple felonies in connection with the armed robbery. At Kim’s trial, Antrim testified about how he devised and executed the robbery with Kim’s help. Antrim’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 13.

          Five other defendants, including McBride, have pleaded guilty to criminal charges for their involvement in the robbery and will be sentenced in the coming months.

          The Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated this case. LASD’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau provided substantial assistance to the federal investigation.

          This matter was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Lindsey Greer Dotson of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and Joseph D. Axelrad of the Violent and Organized Crime Section.

          LOS ANGELES – A former employee of a marijuana distribution warehouse was found guilty by a jury today of federal criminal charges that he conspired with a corrupt Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputy to rob his former employer of $2 million dollars’ worth of marijuana and cash through an armed robbery staged to look like a legitimate law enforcement operation.

          Christopher Myung Kim, 29, of Walnut, was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

          According to evidence presented at his four-day trial, at approximately 3 a.m. on October 29, 2018, LASD Deputy Marc Antrim, 42, of South El Monte, and six co-conspirators, robbed a marijuana distribution warehouse in downtown Los Angeles. Antrim, who was assigned to the LASD station in Temple City, was arrested by federal authorities for his role in the robbery and agreed to cooperate with the government. Antrim, who was dressed as an armed deputy, flashed his badge and a fake search warrant to gain access to the warehouse and detain the warehouse’s security guards in a cage in the back of an LASD Ford Explorer.

          Days before the robbery, Kim had supplied Antrim with inside information about the robbery, including key details about the warehouse’s layout, operation and security. Kim also gave Antrim the warehouse’s blueprints, noting where security guards likely would be stationed and which rooms Antrim and their co-conspirators should “hit” to ensure that the most valuable items were stolen.

          During the two-hour robbery, Antrim and the fake law enforcement team absconded with more than 1,200 pounds of marijuana, two large commercial safes containing more than $600,000 in cash and money orders, and other items of value from the warehouse.

          Hours after the robbery, Antrim drove a rental truck to a storage facility in Walnut, where Kim had rented a storage unit the day of the robbery. Antrim and co-conspirator Kevin McBride, 44, of Glendora, delivered $1.5 million dollars’ worth of stolen marijuana and marijuana products to Kim to resell for profit. The next day, Kim and others unloaded the stolen marijuana from the storage unit into Kim’s white Lexus RX, a Subaru SUV, and a U-Haul moving truck.

          Kim had worked at the warehouse for years, but a dispute with its owners left him “bitterly disgruntled,” according to court documents. Evidence admitted at trial, including Kim’s social media communications, showed that Kim left his job just weeks before the robbery and conspired with Antrim to orchestrate the raid both for profit and to get revenge against his own bosses.

          Antrim, who was arrested on November 8, 2018 on a federal criminal complaint, pleaded guilty on March 4 to multiple felonies in connection with the armed robbery. His sentencing is scheduled for March 16. Five other defendants, including McBride, also have pleaded guilty for their involvement in the robbery and will be sentenced early next year.

          United States District Judge Virginia A. Phillips scheduled a February 10 sentencing hearing, at which time Kim will face a statutory maximum sentence of life in federal prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 years in prison.

          The jury acquitted Kim of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

          This case was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. LASD’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau provided substantial assistance to the federal investigation.

          This matter is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Lindsey Greer Dotson of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and Joseph D. Axelrad of the Violent and Organized Crime Section.

          LOS ANGELES – Three men were arrested this morning on federal drug distribution charges alleging they conspired with a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy and others to steal more than 1,200 pounds of marijuana and $645,000 in cash and money orders during an armed robbery of a downtown Los Angeles warehouse that was staged to look like law enforcement was executing a search warrant.

          Matthew James Perez, a.k.a. “Neer,” 42, of Ontario; Daniel Aguilera, 31, of East Los Angeles; and Jay Colby Sanford, a.k.a. “Monte Jay,” 41, of Pomona, were arrested this morning without incident. They are scheduled to make their initial court appearances this afternoon in United States District Court.

          According to a criminal complaint unsealed today, Perez, Aguilera, and Sanford conspired with LASD Deputy Marc Antrim, 41, of South El Monte, and others to commit the early morning armed robbery on October 29. The off-duty Antrim, Perez and a third man arrived at the warehouse at 3:00 a.m. in an unmarked Ford Explorer registered to LASD. All three men were dressed as LASD deputies, were carrying holstered firearms, and posed as legitimate law enforcement officers executing a search warrant of the warehouse, court documents state. Perez, a convicted felon, also allegedly brandished a rifle.

          After Antrim detained the warehouse’s three security guards inside the LASD Ford Explorer, Aguilera drove a large rental truck into the warehouse parking lot, which later was used to transport the stolen marijuana, two cash-filled safes and other items from the warehouse, according to court documents. During the robbery, Sanford allegedly served as a nearby look-out, scouting for potential law enforcement and remaining in contact with his co-conspirators via phone and walkie-talkie radios.

          While the two-hour robbery was in progress, Los Angeles Police Department officers legitimately responded to a call for service at the warehouse, the complaint states. When LAPD officers arrived, Perez and the other man posing as a deputy discarded their LASD jackets and fled through a back door, along with Aguilera, according to court documents. Antrim allegedly remained at the warehouse, showed the LAPD officers his LASD badge, and falsely claimed that he was conducting a legitimate search.

          Antrim then allegedly handed his phone to one of the LAPD officers so that the officer could speak to someone on the phone claiming to be Antrim’s LASD sergeant. According to court documents, however, the individual on the phone was not Antrim’s sergeant, and Antrim did not have a legitimate search warrant for the warehouse. Antrim’s falsehoods ultimately prompted the LAPD officers to leave the warehouse, thereby allowing Antrim and his co-conspirators time to complete the heist, court documents state.

          According to the complaint, text messages between Antrim and another conspirator suggest that, for their assistance the night of the robbery, Perez was going to be paid $30,000, Sanford $10,000, and Aguilera $5,000.

          Perez, Aguilera, and Sanford are charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. If convicted of this offense, each man would face a statutory maximum sentence of 40 years in federal prison and a mandatory minimum of five years in prison.

          Antrim and two other men who participated in the robbery were arrested in November. They since have signed plea agreements admitting to drug trafficking and gun charges related to the sham search, and are expected to enter guilty pleas in the coming weeks.

          A complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

          This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. LASD’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau provided substantial assistance to the federal investigation.

          This matter is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lindsey Greer Dotson of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section and Assistant United States Attorney Joseph D. Axelrad of the Violent and Organized Crime Section.

          LOS ANGELES – A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy and two alleged cohorts are scheduled to make their first court appearances this afternoon after they were arrested Thursday on federal drug distribution charges that allege they stole 600 pounds of marijuana and $100,000 in cash during an armed robbery at a downtown Los Angeles warehouse by falsely portraying themselves as law enforcement officers executing a search warrant.

          LASD Deputy Marc Antrim, 41, of South El Monte, who is assigned to the LASD station in Temple City; Eric Rodriguez, a.k.a. “Rooster,” 32, of Adelanto; and Kevin McBride, 43, of Glendora, were all arrested Thursday morning without incident.

          “Deputy Antrim allegedly was able to use his law enforcement expertise and his access to Sheriff’s Department gear to stage a robbery that netted over a million dollars in marijuana and cash,” said United States Attorney Nick Hanna. “We cannot tolerate this type of behavior from sworn officers, and this case demonstrates our commitment to quickly address corrupt behavior by law enforcement. The rapid response by the Sheriff’s Department, and the collaborative work with their federal colleagues in the DEA, FBI and ATF, is a perfect example of law enforcement joining together to ensure the integrity of the criminal justice system.”

          “Today’s arrests send a clear message that law enforcement will not tolerate criminal activity committed by those entrusted to uphold the law and protect the public,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge David J. Downing. “Drug traffickers will be held accountable, regardless of their standing in the community.”

          “The alleged actions by the defendants detail an egregious level of corruption that posed a safety risk to victims and fellow police officers,” said Paul Delacourt, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office. “The FBI and our partners will continue to root out corruption which undermines the law enforcement mission and stains the reputation of those committed to serve and protect.”

          “This is an example of local and federal law enforcement partners collaborating to make our community a safer place for all,” said Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Special Agent in Charge of Los Angeles Field Division Bill McMullan. “Law-enforcement personnel are held to a higher standard as they are chosen to protect our communities. It is always disheartening when an individual thinks he is above the law because he wears a badge. It won’t be tolerated in any form.”

          “Our Department has a great working relationship with our federal partners in protecting the public and maintaining trust,” said Sheriff Jim McDonnell. “This case serves as an example of the thorough processes in place and our commitment to holding anyone who violates the law accountable.”

          According to two criminal complaints filed in this case, security camera footage shows Antrim, McBride and another unnamed co-conspirator approaching the warehouse during the early morning hours of October 29, driving an unmarked Ford Explorer. The Ford Explorer’s license plate shows it was an LASD-registered vehicle assigned to the Temple Station, where Antrim worked.

          Antrim and his co-conspirators allegedly gained access to the warehouse by purporting to be deputies executing a lawful search. All three men allegedly were dressed as deputies, Antrim in a green vest that said “Sheriff” and McBride and the other cohort in green jackets with LASD patches on the sleeve. All were wearing duty belts often worn by law enforcement officials, each had a holstered handgun, and one man appeared to be holding a long gun, according to court documents. Antrim allegedly showed a security guard a piece of paper inside a folder, which investigators believe was a document purporting to be a search warrant for the warehouse.

          At the beginning of the two-hour robbery, Antrim, McBride and the third man allegedly detained three warehouse employees, including two security guards, in the backseat of the LASD Ford Explorer. Soon after the guards and the employee were detained, a fourth man arrived at the warehouse in a large rental truck, and all four men began loading what appeared to be marijuana into the truck.

          When Los Angeles Police Department officers legitimately responded to a call for service at the warehouse during the robbery, Antrim’s three co-conspirators allegedly fled the warehouse through a back door and two of them discarded their LASD jackets. Antrim then falsely told the LAPD officers that he was an LASD narcotics deputy conducting a legitimate search, court documents said. To facilitate the sham, Antrim allegedly handed his phone to one of the LAPD officers so that the officer could speak to someone on the phone claiming to be Antrim’s LASD sergeant. According to court documents, the individual on the phone was not Antrim’s sergeant, and Antrim did not have a legitimate search warrant for the warehouse.

          After LAPD officers left the warehouse about 20 minutes later, McBride and another co-conspirator allegedly returned to the scene and continued the robbery with Antrim. Rodriguez allegedly showed up at the warehouse in his pickup truck, and all four men loaded more marijuana and two safes into the rental truck.

          Several days later, an attorney representing the marijuana distribution warehouse contacted the Sheriff’s Department about the robbery.

          At the time of the robbery, Antrim was a patrol deputy assigned to the Temple City station, but he was not on duty, was not assigned to the department’s narcotics unit, was not a detective and would not have had a legitimate reason to search a marijuana distribution warehouse in the City of Los Angeles, according to the complaint.

          As set forth in the complaint naming McBride, which was filed this morning, the rental truck went to McBride’s house after the robbery. During searches conducted Thursday in conjunction with the arrests, federal investigators recovered a total of approximately $300,000 to $400,000 from Antrim’s and McBride’s residences. Federal agents also seized about two pounds of marijuana packaged for commercial sale from McBride’s residence, as well as firearms from both men.

          A review of Sheriff’s Department records and interviews with LASD personnel indicated no evidence of any legitimate search warrant of the warehouse being executed on October 29.

          A complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Antrim, McBride and Rodriguez are charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. If convicted of this offense, each would face a statutory maximum sentence of 40 years in federal prison.

          This case is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. LASD’s Internal Criminal Investigations Bureau provided substantial assistance to the federal investigation.

          This matter is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lindsey Greer Dotson of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section, and Assistant United States Attorney Joseph Axelrad of the Violent and Organized Crime Section.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r3PNb8U6SC51LpRdrRj367iB1E1wu0IVkO0L4DSThBk
  Last Updated: 2024-04-10 21:49:30 UTC
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   CD-CA  2:18-mj-02983
Case Name:   USA v. Antrim et al
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nU1HJkVMsROQV6v0N18udKxfZhBOwLx4y9ErMsDCOmQ
  Last Updated: 2024-03-29 17:59:06 UTC
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   CD-CA  2:18-mj-02999
Case Name:   USA v. McBride
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zSpntW0gBdZWzJtc0A01FFJKhe7KLFslb8SMX_L9aN0
  Last Updated: 2024-03-29 17:59:11 UTC
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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E