Score:   1
Docket Number:   CD-CA  2:19-cr-00313
Case Name:   USA v. Domingo
  Press Releases:
A federal grand jury has indicted a San Fernando Valley man for his role in planning to bomb a rally in Long Beach last month for the purpose of causing mass casualties.  Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers and U.S. Attorney Nicola T. Hanna for the Central District of California made the announcement.

Mark Steven Domingo, 26, of Reseda, California, a former U.S. Army infantryman who was deployed to Afghanistan, was previously arrested on a criminal complaint in this case.  The indictment returned today formally charges him with providing material support to terrorists and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.  If convicted, he would face a statutory maximum sentence of life in federal prison.

Domingo, who has been in federal custody since his arrest last month, is scheduled to be arraigned on the indictment on May 31 in United States District Court.

According to the affidavit filed with the criminal complaint, Domingo, in online posts and in conversations with an FBI source, expressed support for violent jihad, a desire to seek retribution for attacks against Muslims, and a willingness to become a martyr. After considering various attacks – including targeting Jewish people, churches, and police officers – Domingo decided to bomb a rally scheduled to take place in Long Beach last month. As part of the plot, Domingo asked a confederate – who actually was working with the FBI as part of the investigation – to find a bomb-maker. Domingo then purchased and provided to the confederate and the bomb-maker, who was actually an undercover officer, several hundred nails to be used as shrapnel for the bombs.

Leading up to the planned attack, Domingo called for another event similar to the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas to give Americans “a taste of the terror they gladly spread all over the world,” the complaint states. Following an attack on Muslims in New Zealand on March 15, Domingo wrote in an online post, “there must be retribution,” according to the complaint.

On April 26, Domingo received what he thought was a live bomb, but in fact was an inert explosive device that was delivered by the undercover law enforcement officer.  According to the criminal complaint, after receiving the bomb, Domingo drove his confederate and the undercover officer to Long Beach to scout the location Domingo planned to attack. While there, Domingo discussed finding the most crowded areas in order to kill the most people. Domingo was arrested shortly after returning from scouting the intended attack location.

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

This matter is the product of an investigation by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. JTTF members who participated in the investigation include the FBI, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and the Long Beach Police Department.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Reema M. El-Amamy and David T. Ryan of the Terrorism and Export Crimes Section at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California and Trial Attorney Ranganath Manthripragada of the Counterterrorism Section at the Department of Justice’s National Security Division.

          LOS ANGELES – A federal grand jury has indicted a San Fernando Valley man for his role in planning to bomb a rally in Long Beach last month for the purpose of causing mass casualties.

          Mark Steven Domingo, 26, of Reseda, a former U.S. Army infantryman who was deployed to Afghanistan, was previously arrested on a criminal complaint in this case. The indictment returned today formally charges him with providing material support to terrorists and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. If convicted, he would face statutory maximum sentence of life in federal prison.

          Domingo, who has been in federal custody since his arrest last month, is scheduled to be arraigned on the indictment on May 31 in United States District Court.

          According to the affidavit filed with the criminal complaint, Domingo, in online posts and in conversations with an FBI source, expressed support for violent jihad, a desire to seek retribution for attacks against Muslims, and a willingness to become a martyr. After considering various attacks – including targeting Jewish people, churches, and police officers – Domingo decided to bomb a rally scheduled to take place in Long Beach last month. As part of the plot, Domingo asked a confederate – who actually was working with the FBI as part of the investigation – to find a bomb-maker. Domingo then purchased and provided to the confederate and the bomb-maker, who actually was the undercover officer, several hundred nails to be used as shrapnel for the bombs.

          Leading up to the planned attack, Domingo called for another event similar to the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas to give Americans “a taste of the terror they gladly spread all over the world,” the complaint states. Following an attack on Muslims in New Zealand on March 15, Domingo wrote in an online post, “there must be retribution,” according to the complaint.

          On April 26, Domingo received what he thought was a live bomb, but in fact was an inert explosive device that was delivered by an undercover law enforcement officer. According to the criminal complaint, after receiving the bomb, Domingo drove his confederate and the undercover officer to Long Beach to scout the location Domingo planned to attack. While there, Domingo discussed finding the most crowded areas in order to kill the most people. Domingo was arrested shortly after returning from scouting the intended attack location.

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

          This matter is the product of an investigation by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. JTTF members who participated in the investigation include the FBI, the Los Angeles Police Department, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and the Long Beach Police Department.

          This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Reema M. El-Amamy and David T. Ryan of the Terrorism and Export Crimes Section at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California and Trial Attorney Ranganath Manthripragada of the Counterterrorism Section at the Department of Justice’s National Security Division.

Mark Steven Domingo, 26, of Reseda, California, was arrested Friday night after he received what he thought was a live bomb, but in fact was an inert explosive device that was delivered by an undercover law enforcement officer as part of an investigation by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Domingo, a former U.S. Army infantryman with combat experience in Afghanistan, faces federal charges in a terrorist plot in which he planned to detonate an improvised explosive device (IED) for the purpose of causing mass casualties. 

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna for the Central District of California and Assistant Director in Charge Paul D. Delacourt of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office made the announcement.

“Domingo, a former U.S. Army Infantryman, wanted to use improvised explosive devices against innocent civilians and he selected components that would make the bombs even more deadly to the victims he targeted,” said Assistant Attorney General Demers.  “His arrest today mitigates the threat he posed to others in the Los Angeles community.  I want to thank the agents, analysts, and prosecutors who are responsible for this investigation and arrest.”

“This investigation successfully disrupted a very real threat posed by a trained combat soldier who repeatedly stated he wanted to cause the maximum number of casualties,” said U.S. Attorney Hanna.  “Protecting Americans from terror attacks is the number one priority of the Justice Department, and anyone who plots to use a weapon of mass destruction will be held to account.”

“The individual charged in this case wanted to carry out a mass casualty attack with explosive devices, and he moved very quickly from talking about violence to mobilizing to commit such an attack,” said Assistant Director Michael McGarrity of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.  “This case should remind the public of the need to be vigilant and notify law enforcement if you see suspicious behavior.”

“I’m extremely glad to be announcing that we interdicted a potential terrorist attack, rather than outlining the FBI’s response to yet another tragedy,” said Assistant Director Delacourt of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office.  “At no time was the public in danger and there is currently no known threat to public safety.  I’m very proud of the agents and officers assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force who diligently marshaled the resources of our law enforcement partners in a short period of time and in doing so, ensured the safety of Southern California residents.” 

“I can tell you, unequivocally, that this partnership, coupled with our ability to be nimble, ultimately resulted in dozens of innocent lives being saved in Southern California,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Michel R. Moore.

In a criminal complaint filed by federal prosecutors on April 27, 2019, and unsealed earlier today, Domingo was charged with providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists.  Domingo, who has been in federal custody since his arrest, is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in United States District Court.

According to a 30-page affidavit in support of the complaint, since early March, Domingo “planned and took steps to manufacture and use a weapon of mass destruction in order to commit mass murder.”

In online posts and in conversations with an FBI source, Domingo expressed support for violent jihad, a desire to seek retribution for attacks against Muslims, and a willingness to become a martyr, according to the affidavit.  After considering various attacks – including targeting Jews, churches, and police officers – Domingo decided to detonate an IED at a rally scheduled to take place in Long Beach this past weekend.  As part of the plot, Domingo asked his confederate – who actually was cooperating with the FBI as part of the investigation – to find a bomb-maker, and Domingo last week purchased several hundred nails to be used as shrapnel inside the IED.

“Domingo said he specifically bought three-inch nails because they would be long enough to penetrate the human body and puncture internal organs,” the affidavit states.

After Domingo provided the nails to the undercover operative for use in the construction of the bomb, Domingo sent a message on Thursday indicating that the operation was to proceed, according to the affidavit.  On Friday evening, the undercover operative delivered multiple inert devices, which Domingo believed were weapons of mass destruction.  After inspecting the devices and travelling to a park in Long Beach to surveil the location of the planned attack, Domingo was taken into custody.

According to the criminal complaint, Domingo posted an online video professing his Muslim faith on March 2, and the next day made another posting in which he said “America needs another vegas event” (referring to the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada) that would give “them a taste of the terror they gladly spread all over the world.”  Following an attack on a mosque in New Zealand on March 13, Domingo posted, “there mustbe retribution.”

In response to the postings, an FBI “confidential human source” (CHS) began an online conversation that resulted in a series of in-person meetings with Domingo.  During the first meeting, on March 18, “Domingo discussed with the CHS different targets for an attack, including Jews, police officers, churches, and a military facility,” according to the affidavit.

During subsequent meetings outlined in the affidavit, Domingo continued to express his desire to commit a terrorist act, at points contemplating a drive-by shooting with a modified AK-47-style rifle he owned, and at other points considering the use of an IED.   During an April 3 meeting, Domingo allegedly expressed support for ISIS and said “if ISIS ‘came here,’ he would swear allegiance to ISIS,” according to the complaint.

The plan to target the rally came into shape during an April 19 meeting, when Domingo arrived to a meeting with the CHS armed with an AK-47-style rifle “to show you that I’m serious,” according to the complaint.  During that meeting, Domingo referenced the Boston Marathon bombing and asked the CHS to find a person to construct an IED that he said could cause 50 casualties.

During several of the meetings, Domingo urged the CHS to maintain secrecy, stating what they were discussing were “federal charges” and “We broke federal law,” according to the complaint.

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

If convicted of the charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists, Domingo would face a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years in federal prison.

This matter is being investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes special agents with the FBI and officers with the Los Angeles Police Department.  JTTF members who participated in the investigation include the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Long Beach Police Department.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Reema M. El-Amamy and David T. Ryan of the Terrorism and Export Crimes Section.

          LOS ANGELES – A San Fernando Valley man was arrested Friday night after he received what he thought was a live bomb, but in fact was an inert explosive device that was delivered by an undercover law enforcement officer as part of an investigation by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

          Mark Steven Domingo, 26, of Reseda, a former U.S. Army infantryman with combat experience in Afghanistan, faces federal charges in a terrorist plot in which he planned to detonate an improvised explosive device (IED) for the purpose of causing mass casualties. 

          In a criminal complaint filed Saturday by federal prosecutors and unsealed earlier today, Domingo was charged with providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists. Domingo, who has been in federal custody since his arrest, is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in United States District Court.

          According to a 30-page affidavit in support of the complaint, since early March, Domingo “planned and took steps to manufacture and use a weapon of mass destruction in order to commit mass murder.”

          “This investigation successfully disrupted a very real threat posed by a trained combat soldier who repeatedly stated he wanted to cause the maximum number of casualties,” said United States Attorney Nick Hanna. “Protecting Americans from terror attacks is the number one priority of the Justice Department, and anyone who plots to use a weapon of mass destruction will be held to account.”

          “I’m extremely glad to be announcing that we interdicted a potential terrorist attack, rather than outlining the FBI’s response to yet another tragedy,” said Paul Delacourt, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office. “At no time was the public in danger and there is currently no known threat to public safety.  I’m very proud of the agents and officers assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force who diligently marshaled the resources of our law enforcement partners in a short period of time and in doing so, ensured the safety of Southern California residents.”

          “I can tell you, unequivocally, that this partnership, coupled with our ability to be nimble, ultimately resulted in dozens of innocent lives being saved in Southern California,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Michel R. Moore.

          In online posts and in conversations with an FBI source, Domingo expressed support for violent jihad, a desire to seek retribution for attacks against Muslims, and a willingness to become a martyr, according to the affidavit. After considering various attacks – including targeting Jews, churches, and police officers – Domingo decided to detonate an IED at a rally scheduled to take place in Long Beach this past weekend.  As part of the plot, Domingo asked his confederate – who actually was cooperating with the FBI as part of the investigation – to find a bomb-maker, and Domingo last week purchased several hundred nails to be used as shrapnel inside the IED.

          “Domingo said he specifically bought three-inch nails because they would be long enough to penetrate the human body and puncture internal organs,” the affidavit states.

          After Domingo provided the nails to the undercover operative for use in the construction of the bomb, Domingo sent a message on Thursday indicating that the operation was to proceed, according to the affidavit. On Friday evening, the undercover operative delivered multiple inert devices, which Domingo believed were weapons of mass destruction. After inspecting the devices and travelling to a park in Long Beach to surveil the location of the planned attack, Domingo was taken into custody.

          According to the criminal complaint, Domingo posted an online video professing his Muslim faith on March 2, and the next day made another posting in which he said “America needs another vegas event” (referring to the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada) that would give “them a taste of the terror they gladly spread all over the world.” Following an attack on a mosque in New Zealand on March 13, Domingo posted, “there mustbe retribution.”

          In response to the postings, an FBI “confidential human source” (CHS) began an online conversation that resulted in a series of in-person meetings with Domingo. During the first meeting, on March 18, “Domingo discussed with the CHS different targets for an attack, including Jews, police officers, churches, and a military facility,” according to the affidavit.

          During subsequent meetings outlined in the affidavit, Domingo continued to express his desire to commit a terrorist act, at points contemplating a drive-by shooting with a modified AK-47-style rifle he owned, and at other points considering the use of an IED. During an April 3 meeting, Domingo allegedly expressed support for ISIS and said “if ISIS ‘came here,’ he would swear allegiance to ISIS,” according to the complaint.

          The plan to target the rally came into shape during an April 19 meeting, when Domingo arrived to a meeting with the CHS armed with an AK-47-style rifle “to show you that I’m serious,” according to the complaint. During that meeting, Domingo referenced the Boston Marathon bombing and asked the CHS to find a person to construct an IED that he said could cause 50 casualties.

          During several of the meetings, Domingo urged the CHS to maintain secrecy, stating what they were discussing were “federal charges” and “We broke federal law,” according to the complaint.

          “Domingo, a former U.S. Army Infantryman, wanted to use improvised explosive devices against innocent civilians and he selected components that would make the bombs even more deadly to the victims he targeted,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers. “His arrest today mitigates the threat he posed to others in the Los Angeles community. I want to thank the agents, analysts, and prosecutors who are responsible for this investigation and arrest.”

          “The individual charged in this case wanted to carry out a mass casualty attack with explosive devices, and he moved very quickly from talking about violence to mobilizing to commit such an attack,” said Assistant Director Michael McGarrity of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Section. “This case should remind the public of the need to be vigilant and notify law enforcement if you see suspicious behavior.”

          “We strongly value the interagency cooperation and information sharing that occurs on a daily basis regarding potential threats to our region,” stated Long Beach Police Chief Robert Luna. “I want to thank all of our partner agencies for their dedicated efforts on this extensive investigation and for ensuring that the City of Long Beach was not impacted by a significant act of senseless violence."

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

          If convicted of the charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists, Domingo would face a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years in federal prison.

          This matter is being investigated by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes special agents with the FBI and officers with the Los Angeles Police Department. JTTF members who participated in the investigation include the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the Long Beach Police Department.

          This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Reema M. El-Amamy and David T. Ryan of the Terrorism and Export Crimes Section.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EEX1CMtaYZ-aiJJ8wOCQVr33wUGyWi-uK-Mg_D33BZw/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-19 09:33:55 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 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  2:19-mj-01751
Case Name:   USA v. Domingo
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
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