John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that EDDY PENA, 30, of Providence, Rhode Island, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 179 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, for trafficking heroin.
On February 20, 2019, a jury found Pena guilty of one count of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, one kilogram or more of heroin. Prior to his trial, on February 4, 2019, Pena pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
According to court documents, statements made in court and the evidence introduced during the trial, this matter stems from an investigation that began after several heroin overdoses in southeastern Connecticut, including two overdose deaths involving a heroin and fentanyl mix that occurred in January, 2016. The investigation, which included court-authorized wiretaps and controlled purchases of narcotics, revealed that Pena regularly supplied Michael Luciano, of New London, with large quantities of heroin. Luciano, who also received heroin from sources in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, distributed the drug through a network of street-level dealers in southeastern Connecticut. The evidence at trial also indicated that Pena supplied heroin to individuals in Providence, Rhode Island, and Fall River, Massachusetts, as early as 2012. Based on the trial evidence, Judge Shea found that Pena was responsible for the trafficking of at least 10 kilograms of heroin but less than 30 kilograms of heroin, and that Pena was the leader of a conspiracy that was extensive and involved five or more participants.
Pena has been detained since his arrest on November 14, 2017. On that date, investigators executed 12 federal search warrants and seized more than three kilograms of heroin from other members of the conspiracy, and approximately $14,000 in cash from Pena.
On December 12, 2017, a grand jury in Hartford returned a 25-count superseding indictment charging Pena, Luciano and 19 other individuals with various heroin trafficking offenses.
On June 27, 2018, Luciano pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. On January 29, 2019, he was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
This matter has been investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and the New London, Norwich, Waterford, Attleboro (Mass.) and Freetown (Mass.) Police Departments.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys S. Dave Vatti and Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that MAYCOL CAMPOS, 37, a citizen of Guatemala last residing in Attleboro, Massachusetts, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 26 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised, release, for trafficking heroin.
According to court documents and statements made in court, this matter stems from an investigation that began after several heroin overdoses in southeastern Connecticut, including two overdose deaths involving a heroin and fentanyl mix that occurred in January 2016. The investigation, which included court-authorized wiretaps and controlled purchases of narcotics, revealed that Campos regularly acquired and distributed heroin. On one occasion, Campos provided an associate, Mario Recinos, with approximately 50 grams of heroin that Recinos, in turn, gave to Michael Luciano of New London. Luciano, who also received heroin from other suppliers, distributed the drug through a network of street-level dealers in southeastern Connecticut.
Campos has been detained since his arrest on November 14, 2017. On that date, investigators executed 12 federal search warrants and seized more than three kilograms of heroin from members of the conspiracy.
On December 12, 2017, a grand jury in Hartford returned a 25-count superseding indictment charging Campos, Luciano, Recinos and 18 other individuals with various heroin trafficking offenses.
On November 7, 2018, Campos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin.
Campos faces immigration proceedings when he is released from prison.
On June 27, 2018, Luciano pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. On January 29, 2019, he was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
On November 9, 2018, Recinos, a citizen of Guatemala last residing in Rhode Island, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. On April 9, 2019, he was sentenced to 42 months of imprisonment. He also faces immigration proceedings at the conclusion of his sentence.
This matter is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and the New London, Norwich, Waterford, Attleboro (Mass.) and Freetown (Mass.) Police Departments.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys S. Dave Vatti and Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that MARIO RECINOS, 27, a citizen of Guatemala last residing in Central Falls, R.I., was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 42 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised, release, for trafficking heroin.
According to court documents and statements made in court, this matter stems from an investigation that began after several heroin overdoses in southeastern Connecticut, including two overdose deaths involving a heroin and fentanyl mix that occurred in January 2016. The investigation, which included court-authorized wiretaps and controlled purchases of narcotics, revealed that Recinos and others supplied Michael Luciano, of New London, with heroin. Luciano distributed the drug through a network of street-level dealers in southeastern Connecticut.
Recinos has been detained since his arrest on November 14, 2017. On that date, investigators executed 12 federal search warrants and seized more than three kilograms of heroin from members of the conspiracy, including more than one-half kilogram from Recinos.
On December 12, 2017, a grand jury in Hartford returned a 25-count superseding indictment charging Recinos, Luciano and 19 other individuals with various heroin trafficking offenses.
On November 9, 2018, Recinos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin.
Recinos faces immigration proceedings when he is released from prison.
On June 27, 2018, Luciano pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. On January 29, 2019, he was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
This matter is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and the New London, Norwich, Waterford, Attleboro (Mass.) and Freetown (Mass.) Police Departments.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys S. Dave Vatti and Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that two men have been sentenced in Hartford federal court for their participation in a Southeastern Connecticut heroin trafficking ring.
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea sentenced ROBERTO ROMAN, also known as “Indio,” 49, of New London, to 72 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. Today, Judge Shea sentenced MARCUS ANTON, 34, of Montville, to 48 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
According to court documents and statements made in court, this matter stems from an investigation that began after several heroin overdoses in southeastern Connecticut, including two overdose deaths involving a heroin and fentanyl mix that occurred in January 2016. The investigation, which included court-authorized wiretaps and controlled purchases of narcotics, revealed that Michael Luciano, of New London, was distributing heroin through a network of street-level dealers in southeastern Connecticut.
Roman served as a “runner” for Luciano, delivering heroin to Luciano’s customers, collecting cash from them, and then delivering the money Luciano. Anton was a street-level heroin dealer who was supplied by Luciano.
On December 12, 2017, a grand jury in Hartford returned a 25-count superseding indictment charging Luciano, Roman, Anton and 18 other individuals with various heroin trafficking offenses.
On August 30, 2018, Anton pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin. On September 27, 2018, Roman pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin.
On June 27, 2018, Luciano pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. On January 29, 2019, he was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
This matter is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and the New London, Norwich, Waterford, Attleboro (Mass.) and Freetown (Mass.) Police Departments.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys S. Dave Vatti and Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that a federal jury in Hartford has found EDDY PENA, 30, of Providence, Rhode Island, guilty of one count of conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, one kilogram or more of heroin. The trial before U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea began on February 11 and the jury returned the verdict this morning.
According to court documents, statements made in court and the evidence introduced during the trial, this matter stems from an investigation that began after several heroin overdoses in southeastern Connecticut, including two overdose deaths involving a heroin and fentanyl mix that occurred in January 2016. The investigation, which included court-authorized wiretaps and controlled purchases of narcotics, revealed that Pena regularly supplied Michael Luciano, of New London, with large quantities of heroin. Luciano, who also received heroin from sources in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, distributed the drug through a network of street-level dealers in southeastern Connecticut.
The evidence at trial in also indicated that Pena supplied heroin to individuals in Providence, Rhode Island, and Fall River, Massachusetts, as early as 2012.
Pena has been detained since his arrest on November 14, 2017. On that date, investigators executed 12 federal search warrants and seized more than three kilograms of heroin from other members of the conspiracy, and approximately $14,000 in cash from Pena.
On December 12, 2017, a grand jury in Hartford returned a 25-count superseding indictment charging Pena, Luciano and 19 other individuals with various heroin trafficking offenses.
Prior to his trial, on February 4, 2019, Pena pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
When he is sentenced, Pena faces a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years and a maximum term of imprisonment of life. A sentencing date is not scheduled.
On June 27, 2018, Luciano pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin. On January 29, 2019, he was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment.
This matter is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and the New London, Norwich, Waterford, Attleboro (Mass.) and Freetown (Mass.) Police Departments.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys S. Dave Vatti and Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that MICHAEL LUCIANO, 33, of New London, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 144 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, for trafficking heroin.
According to court documents and statements made in court, this matter stems from an investigation that began after several heroin overdoses in southeastern Connecticut, including two overdose deaths involving a heroin and fentanyl mix that occurred in January 2016. The investigation, which included court-authorized wiretaps and controlled purchases of narcotics, revealed that Luciano regularly obtained large quantities of heroin from sources in Rhode Island and Massachusetts and distributed the drug through a network of street-level dealers in southeastern Connecticut.
Luciano has been detained since his arrest on November 14, 2017. On December 12, 2017, a grand jury in Hartford returned a 25-count superseding indictment charging Luciano and 20 other individuals with various heroin trafficking offenses. On June 27, 2018, Luciano pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin.
Luciano’s criminal history includes a federal conviction in the District of Rhode Island for possession with intent to distribute heroin. In September 2010, he was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment for that offense.
This matter is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and the New London, Norwich, Waterford, Attleboro (Mass.) and Freetown (Mass.) Police Departments.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys S. Dave Vatti and Jocelyn Courtney Kaoutzanis.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that a grand jury in Hartford returned a 14-count indictment today charging the following 10 individuals with heroin trafficking offenses:
MICHAEL LUCIANO, 32, of New LondonEDDY PENA, 29, of MontvilleMARIO RECINOS, 26, of Central Falls, R.I.ELIZABETH MORALES, 47, a citizen of Guatamala residing in Johnston, R.I.MAYCOL CAMPOS, 36, of Attleboro, Mass.SELENA MENA, 28, of New LondonROBERTO ROMAN, a.k.a. “Indio,” 47, of New LondonWILLIAM GONZALEZ-NIEVES, 26, of NorwichJOSE QUINONES, 56, of Providence, R.I.HECTOR QUINONES, 38, of Freetown, Mass.
The indictment stems from an investigation headed by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and New London Police Department targeting a southeastern Connecticut heroin trafficking ring. The investigation began after several heroin overdoses in southeastern Connecticut, including two overdose deaths involving a heroin and fentanyl mix that occurred in January 2016.
As alleged in court documents and statements made in court, between January and June 2017, investigators made controlled purchases of heroin from Luciano and Gonzalez-Nieves. Subsequent court-authorized wiretaps revealed that Recinos and Morales, with the assistance of Campos, regularly supplied heroin on credit to Luciano, who then distributed the drug to a large customer base in southeastern Connecticut. Pena also supplied Luciano with heroin. Mena and Roman assisted Luciano by packaging heroin for distribution, making deliveries and collecting drug proceeds that Luciano then delivered to Recinos and Morales.
It is further alleged that Recinos supplied Hector Quinones and Morales supplied Jose Quinones with distribution quantities of heroin.
All of the defendants, with the exception of Hector Quinones, who has been incarcerated in Rhode Island for an unrelated state offense, were arrested on November 14. On that date, investigators executed 12 federal search warrants and seized more than three kilograms of heroin, including significant quantities from Luciano, Recinos, Morales, Jose Quinones, Roman and Campos. Investigators also seized approximately 100 grams of fentanyl from Campos, more than $14,000 in cash from Pena, and more than $13,000 in cash from Morales.
All of the defendants are charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin. If convicted of this charge, based on their conduct and the quantity of heroin involved in the conspiracy, Luciano, Recinos, Morales, Campos, Roman and Mena face a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years and a maximum term of imprisonment of life; Pena, Gonzalez-Nieves and Jose Quinones face a minimum term of imprisonment of five years and a maximum term of imprisonment of 40 years, and Hector Quinones faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years.
Luciano, Pena, Mena, Roman and Gonzalez-Nieves are also charged with one or more counts of possession with intent to distribute, and/or distribution of, heroin.
All of the defendants are detained.
U.S. Attorney Durham stressed that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. Charges are only allegations, and each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This matter is being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, Homeland Security Investigations, Connecticut State Police Statewide Narcotics Task Force East and the New London, Norwich, Waterford, Attleboro (Mass.) and Freetown (Mass.) Police Departments.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys S. Dave Vatti and Jocelyn Courtney Kaoutzanis.
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 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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: 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 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 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 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
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that LUIS RODRIGUEZ, 33, formerly of Hartford, was sentenced yesterday by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 36 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for distributing heroin and fentanyl in Hartford.
According to court documents and statements made in court, in August 2017, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Hartford Task Force launched an investigation into an organization that was selling large amounts of heroin, fentanyl and other narcotics in Hartford. The investigation, which included approximately six months of court-authorized wiretaps, controlled purchases of narcotics and physical surveillance, revealed that members of the organization, including Rodriguez, supplied distribution quantities of narcotics to several Hartford-area drug dealers, and used multiple locations in Hartford to process, store and distribute narcotics.
Rodriguez was intercepted during wiretapped conversations discussing the extensive narcotics distribution enterprise, and attempting to broker the acquisition of firearms.
Rodriguez and other members of the organization were arrested on July 19, 2018. On that date, investigators executed 10 search warrants and seized approximately 2.7 kilograms of fentanyl, one kilogram of heroin, approximately 500 grams of crack cocaine, 100 grams of cocaine, eight firearms, cash, and other evidence of narcotics trafficking activity.
On August 2, 2018, a grand jury in Hartford returned an indictment charging Rodriguez and 15 co-defendants with various offenses.
On May 22, 2019, Rodriguez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”).
Rodriguez, who is currently residing in Rocky Hill while released on a $100,000 bond, is required to report to prison on November 15.
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Hartford Task Force includes personnel from the DEA Hartford Resident Office and the Bristol, Hartford, East Hartford, Manchester, New Britain, Rocky Hill, Wethersfield, Windsor Locks and Willimantic Police Departments. Agencies assisting the investigation include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Connecticut Department of Correction, and the East Hartford, New Britain, Newington and West Hartford Police Departments.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that ANGEL GONZALEZ, also known as “Spider” and “June,” 41, of Hartford, was sentenced yesterday by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 54 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for distributing large quantities of heroin and fentanyl in Hartford.
According to court documents and statements made in court, in August 2017, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Hartford Task Force launched an investigation into an organization that was selling large amounts of heroin, fentanyl and other narcotics in Hartford. The investigation, which included approximately six months of court-authorized wiretaps, controlled purchases of narcotics and physical surveillance, revealed that members of the organization supplied distribution quantities of narcotics to several Hartford-area drug dealers, and used multiple locations in Hartford to process, store and distribute narcotics. Gonzalez made street-level sales of heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and crack cocaine on behalf of this organization.
Gonzalez and other members of the organization were arrested on July 19, 2018. On that date, investigators executed 10 search warrants and seized more than five kilograms of heroin and/or fentanyl, approximately 600 grams of crack cocaine, eight firearms, cash, and other evidence of narcotics trafficking activity. A search of Gonzalez’s residence revealed 33 grams of fentanyl that was packaged for street sale, approximately 19 grams of crack cocaine, $4,147 in cash, and other items.
On August 2, 2018, a grand jury in Hartford returned an indictment charging Gonzalez and 15 co-defendants with various offenses.
Gonzalez has been detained since his arrest. On June 10, 2019, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”).
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Hartford Task Force includes personnel from the DEA Hartford Resident Office and the Bristol, Hartford, East Hartford, Manchester, New Britain, Rocky Hill, Wethersfield, Windsor Locks and Willimantic Police Departments. Agencies assisting the investigation include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Connecticut Department of Correction, and the East Hartford, New Britain, Newington and West Hartford Police Departments.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey M. Stone.
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 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 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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The 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 total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The 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 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 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
NORFOLK, Va. – Two Venezuelan citizens pleaded guilty today and yesterday to conspiracy to distribute cocaine on board a vessel in international waters.
According to court documents, on May 16, 2023, Juan Milano, 50, and Carlos Marcano, 31, were found with two others by a U.S. Navy ship and its Naval and Coast Guard personnel on board a go-fast boat in international waters while in possession of over 1400 kilograms of cocaine. The go-fast vessel was without nationality, and none of its crew declared their nationality, the flag nationality of the vessel, or claimed to be its master.
Milano is schedule to be sentenced on December 14 and Marcano, who pleaded yesterday, is scheduled to be sentenced on December 13. They each face a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of life imprisonment. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Milano and Marcano were prosecuted as part of a joint interagency partnership between the U.S Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, the Department of Justice including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and select U.S. Attorney offices in the United States and its territories.
Jessica D. Aber, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Jarod Forget, Special Agent in Charge for the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Washington Division; Derek W. Gordon, Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Washington, D.C.; William P. Hicks II, Special Agent in Charge, Coast Guard Investigative Service, Chesapeake Region, made the announcement after U.S. District Senior Judge Raymond A. Jackson.
The Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Section of the Department of Justice assisted in this investigation. The Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF-S), a United States multiservice, multiagency task force, also assisted in this investigation.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin M. Comstock is prosecuting the case.
Congress has declared drug trafficking on vessels in international waters a serious international problem universally condemned and one that presents a specific threat to the security and societal well-being of the United States.
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. 2:23-cr-85.
New Haven – The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut hosted a Community Policing Awards Ceremony this afternoon that recognized 15 law enforcement officers and community members from cities and towns across the state.
“Today we honor the very best in community policing in Connecticut,” said U.S. Attorney John H. Durham. “These deserving law enforcement officers understand that community policing is an effective way to prevent crime, solve neighborhood problems and keep our cities and towns safe and secure. They know that it is critically important to engage with members of the community in positive, friendly and constructive ways, long before a call for service. My sincere congratulations to each of these award recipients. I thank them for their invaluable work, which continues to strengthen the communities they serve.
Below is a list of the award winners and the nominations submitted on their behalf. Photos of today’s ceremony are available on the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Facebook page.
Clinton Police Department
Chief Vincent DeMaio
Chief of Police Vincent DeMaio, nominated by the Clinton Board of Police Commissioners, has implemented multiple programs geared toward improving relations with the Clinton community while operating within a budget five percent below the previous year.
The Chief reintroduced the DARE program to the elementary and middle school to rave reviews by teachers and parents. The revamped program focuses on decision-making strategies and awareness.
All Clinton officers have been trained and equipped to administer Narcan to combat opioid overdoses. To date, Narcan has been administered on 15 calls with three being life-saving.
The Child Safety Seat Installation Program is staffed by personnel trained and certified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute (NHTSA) in proper child safety seat installation. The program has installed 100 seats and donated 20 to those unable to afford new car seats. Our trained officers visited the Day Care Centers in Clinton and held seminars to educate the parents on proper use. This approach reached more people as it removed any fear of going to the police station. It brought officers closer to the community they live and care about and left a positive message.
Additionally, the Chief has implemented the “R.A.D. Rape & Aggression Defense” program and a redesigned K9 program. He has engaged the department in multiple social media platforms, created the Shoreline Technical Crimes Investigative Group and implemented the Lethality Assessment program.
The Clinton Police Department continuously looks for ways to educate the public on crime prevention and awareness of public safety hazards, frequently partnering with the school system and other community groups to make public service announcements or host presentations to help make the community safer. One of the more recent successes was hosting the “Chasing the Dragon” program to raise awareness of the opioid epidemic facing our State and the Nation.
Lastly, Chief DeMaio hosts a monthly radio program on ICRV radio called “SCAM PATROL” which alerts citizens to many scams, frauds and other types of cyber-crime and how to protect themselves and their identities.
Connecticut State Police
Trooper First Class Dawn Taylor
TFC Taylor has approximately 13 years of service with the Connecticut State Police. She has served as a Patrol Trooper, Academy Instructor, Resident Trooper and Narcotics K9 Handler. Currently, she is the Resident Trooper in Deep River where she has an excellent reputation within the community.
TFC Taylor is involved in many events and activities in the Deep River and Troop F area. She is actively involved with Regional School District #4 (Deep River, Essex and Chester). She regularly visits the schools at bus drop-off and pick-up times and often walks the halls speaking with the students. TFC Taylor supports the DARE program, conducts K9 demonstrations, attends school events and sporting games. TFC Taylor is actively involved with many “Tri-Town” area groups to include the “Safety Awareness Committee,” “Youth & Family Coalition,” and “Juvenile Review Board.” She also teaches a “Drug Endangered Children” (DEC) class at the Academy to new police recruits.
TFC Taylor is very involved with community events, which include the annual Deep River Muster weekend and several other parades and road races. TFC Taylor’s positive and energized attitude about community policing make her “stand out” among her peers.
Connecticut State Police
Sergeant James T. Scott
Sergeant James Scott champions community policing efforts of the Connecticut State Police from the non-traditional role of supervisor for Recruitment and Selections. Sergeant Scott recognizes where normal recruiting suffers, and employs active recruiting efforts where building trust and community are needed.
In October 2016, noting the need and decline in diverse police applicants nationwide, Sergeant Scott actively sought to build diversity in not only CSP recruitment, but also with state and regional law enforcement. The efforts in the spirit of building trust and legitimacy between police and the communities they serve begin with creating a workforce that is diverse. In a recruitment cycle that began post-Ferguson and post-Dallas, it was expected that CSP recruitment might also follow the nationwide trend of fewer applicants, both minority and otherwise. Sergeant Scott was also facing a recruitment cycle with no budget for recruitment efforts.
Despite these obstacles, Sergeant Scott used outside the box thinking to attract the most sought after candidates. This includes his collaboration with Central Connecticut State University’s Communications Department, where students produced two recruitment videos: one highlighting the multi-dimensional aspects of the duties of the State Police (known as the Action video); and a five-member impactful testimonial video highlighting minority and female troopers, who spoke about the State Police career, both in uniform and plain clothes (known as the Impact Testimonial video). The “Action” video was released upon announcement of the test and ran for three weeks. The “Testimonial” video was released with one week remaining during the application period, specifically designed to target minority and women applicants. He also utilized social media to an extent never before used by CSP in recruitment efforts, in a calculated attempt to reach younger candidates who may not have otherwise engaged with the CSP.
While the results of this campaign were expected to be noticeably lower than previous testing cycles due to recent events and trends (Ferguson, Dallas, etc.), the final numbers recorded for the 2017 recruitment cycle surprisingly were comparable to the 2014 efforts, with a near equal number of overall candidates. More importantly, the majority of individual minority demographic groups rose exponentially, to include a rise in applicants who identified as Hispanic males; African American and Hispanic females; and Asian, Native American and Pacific Islander applicants, each specifically registering as all-time highs (DAS, 2017).
In addition, Sgt. Scott continues to assist in other CSP initiatives through the year. This includes The Albertus Magnus Criminal Justice Camp, where he has assisted with coordinating the camp since its inception. This camp has been hosted free of charge for nine consecutive years, and over 1,000 students have registered to attend. He also coordinates the annual Battle of the Badges, where he has partnered with Yale University Police Department and organized a bench press fundraiser for the last eight years. Over $5000 has been donated to Smilow Cancer Center as a result. Finally, Sgt. Scott serves in a volunteer leadership capacity for the Tunxis Community College Foundation, where in addition to serving on the board, he personally funds a criminal justice scholarship.
Connecticut State Police
Trooper Katharine Cummings
Trooper Kate Cummings is at the forefront of the Connecticut State Police community policing efforts as the Statewide D.A.R.E. Coordinator. Although her title is the Statewide D.A.R.E. Coordinator for the Connecticut State Police, the role in which she has served over the course of the past year has evolved to include many aspects of the Juvenile Justice System, current adolescent trends, and the School Resource Officer Programs. The highlights in community policing that she has accomplished during the 2017-2018 School Year include:
As the Statewide D.A.R.E. Coordinator, she serves as the D.A.R.E. Instructor in communities that do not have a certified D.A.R.E. Officer, a Police Department, or a Resident Trooper Program. D.A.R.E. is a 10-week program of 45 minute sessions that cover the following topics: responsibilities, risks, consequences, peer pressure, resistance strategies, and coping skills, bullying/cyber bullying reporting, being a good citizen, and health effects of alcohol and tobacco use. She has taught 38 complete 10-week D.A.R.E. Programs during the last school year on her own. In addition to the traditional D.A.R.E. Program, Trooper Cummings sits on the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Oversight and Policy Committee as the Connecticut State Police representative. This year, the committee drafted a report for the Connecticut Legislature on ways to reduce the number of school-based arrests in the State of Connecticut. Trooper Cummings is also bilingual as she is fluent in Spanish. She is able to teach and present in schools where the students are best served by learning important skills and getting information in Spanish. This is illustrated by her presentation in Spanish at Hanover Elementary School in Meriden for their 5th Grade Career Day.
She also serves as one of the Connecticut State Police Social Media Liaisons through the Public Information Officer, and she moderates a public Instagram page, @CT_Dare_Trooper, which has nearly 6,000 followers from around the world. The page is used to connect with communities to highlight the incredible work of Connecticut's students, showcase the many roles of Connecticut State Troopers, increase our partnerships with local Police Departments and non-profit agencies, provide safety information, and most importantly, serve as a positive social media role model for adolescents. By using this medium, she connects with a younger generation in a variety of ways and demonstrates how we, as a society, can use social media in a positive, healthy way.
Over the past three years, Trooper Cummings developed internet safety and social media presentations for middle school students, high school students, college students, and a parent presentation, which covers social media trends and ways we can use social media safely and positively.
Trooper Katharine Cummings has been a significant presence and a key component of the Community Policing effort for the Connecticut State Police. Her interpersonal talent and bilingual ability gives her the skills to connect with children, teens and adults no matter the venue or issue. She has provided a template for a multitude of law enforcement officers throughout the State of Connecticut by virtue of her willingness to connect with people no matter who they are and what their needs may be.
East Hartford Police Department
Lieutenant Joshua Litwin
Lieutenant Josh Litwin has worked with the East Hartford Police Department since 2002 and has served as a Firearms Instructor, Field Training Officer and as an Investigator in the Detective Division. In his current assignment as the Chief Executive Officer, Lieutenant Litwin has been instrumental in reviving the Community Service Officer program. In this capacity, Lieutenant Litwin has hosted many community outreach events such as Block Watch Meetings, Toy Drives, and Sandwich with a Cop and Coffee with a Cop events. He has also been the driving force behind the East Hartford Police Department’s involvement in the National Night Out event. National Night Out is an annual community-building campaign that promotes police-community partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie to make our neighborhoods safer, more caring places to live. National Night Out enhances the relationship between neighbors and law enforcement while bringing back a true sense of community. Furthermore, it provides a great opportunity to bring police and neighbors together under positive circumstances. Over the last two years, this event has brought hundreds of families throughout the community to the police department to share stories, see demonstrations and have a fun family night out.
Lieutenant Litwin has also participated in a variety of other programs that reach out to local religious and faith based organizations, and he helps to organize and present at the Department’s Citizen Police Academy. Lieutenant Litwin’s tireless dedication to these community based programs is evident and he continues to look for new ways each year for his Department to create a partnership and improve the quality of life for the community he serves.
Enfield Police Department
Officer Eddie G. Nuno
Officer Eddie Nuno is a 25-year veteran of the Enfield Police Department. (He undertook service with this agency after a period of service with the United States Coast Guard.) Over the course of his Enfield Police Department career, Officer Nuno has worked in a variety of capacities, but apparent throughout his tenure has been a true dedication to the concept of community policing.
Officer Nuno serves as the Enfield Police Department’s representative to the town’s Juvenile Review Board, and also serves as the department’s liaison to the Enfield Youth Services Agency. It is fair to say that he uses his bilingual language skills to serve as the department’s liaison to the town’s Hispanic community. He is well known, particularly in the Thompsonville section of town, for his regular community interactions, stopping to visit with community youth, joining assorted sports games while they are “in progress,” meeting with landlord associations, and helping businesses do everything possible to succeed. Enfield is also very fortunate in that Officer Nuno serves as a Field Training Officer, placing him in a position to pass on the skills and positive mindset that he possesses to the next generation of Enfield Police Officers.
Officer Nuno is among the most conscientious and committed of officers. His ability to maintain this demeanor after 25 years of service is indicative of just how deeply he believes in the policing mission.
Town of Groton Department
Officer Richard Savino
Officer Richard Savino is assigned as the Town of Groton Community Policing Officer (CPO) in which position he has been organizing and participating in multiple community events since his appointment. These efforts have not only raised money for charitable causes, but have bridged the gap between law enforcement and the community he serves and protects. Officer Savino has been an organizer, participant and supporter in all of the following events, prior to and during his official assignment as the CPO:
“Cop on Top,” where officers spent the night on top of a local car dealership in freezing cold temperatures to raise money for Special Olympics; “Law Enforcement Torch Run,” where officers from around the region run for miles in their communities with the Special Olympics Torch, raising money and awareness for Special Olympics; “Penguin Plunge,” where officers and members of the community dive into freezing ocean waters raising money and awareness for the Special Olympics; “Tip a Cop,” where officers wait on tables at a local restaurant raising money and awareness for Special Olympics; “Coffee With a Cop,” where law enforcement officers visit a local coffee shop encouraging community members to join them in conversation over a cup of coffee; “Bumpers ‘N Books,” where law enforcement and local residents decorate the trunks and bumpers of their vehicles in various popular children’s book themes; bringing the community together while encouraging children to read and visit their local library; “MADD Car Show” where multiple classic car owners display their vehicles while supporting those who have been impacted by drunk or drugged driving, and “National Night Out” where multiple local businesses, restaurants, law enforcement agencies, emergency medical personnel and health care related organizations gather with the community, eating food, playing games and participating in various events.
The initiatives undertaken by Officer Savino are great examples of what constitutes effective community policing.
In addition to the community policing programs, Officer Savino meets with victims of domestic violence in the community, diligently following up on their cases and assuring that they are getting all of the assistance they need. Officer Savino has been working with local businesses and residents in dealing with noise complaint issues; understanding the needs and concerns of all parties involved.
Officer Savino is an example to all and a true leader in his community.
New Canaan Police Department
Officer Ron Bentley
Officer Ron Bentley has been a member of the New Canaan Police Department since 2005.
Following a brazen daytime violent robbery of a local jewelry store, the New Canaan business community was terrified that this type of crime might happen again. It was at that time, the New Canaan Police Department decided to create the position of Community Impact Officer. Officer Bentley was appointed to that position and is responsible for the New Canaan business district. He has built strong relationships with business owners and residents, and has created a sense of safety and community in the center of town.
Officer Bentley helped implement “Coffee with a Cop” to further foster positive relationships between police officers and the community. He has helped to deter criminal activity, and overall has made the center of New Canaan a safer place to visit.
In addition to his work downtown, Officer Bentley has worked with the town’s youth through his role as baseball coach for the New Canaan High School Varsity Baseball Team and was a previous School Resource Officer at New Canaan High School.
New London Police Department
Sergeant Max Bertsch
Sergeant Max Bertsch has been with the New London Police Department since January 2006. He has been assigned to the Patrol Division, the School Resource Officer Program and is a certified motorcycle officer. Sergeant Bertsch is currently assigned to the Patrol Division as a Street Sergeant.
Sergeant Bertsch has organized the National Night Out program for the New London Police Department for the past eight years. This event links police and elementary school youth together in a fun atmosphere at Ocean Beach Park. Each year the number of children attending and parents has increased, with over 500 in attendance this past August. Sgt. Bertsch also served as the School Resource officer in New London prior to being promoted. His devotion to the youth of the city has found him on numerous fishing trips with school-aged children on his own time. As the SRO, he organized a school based program for high school aged children, similar to a citizens police academy, which continues to today. His efforts with the New London Schools has resulted in great strides being made in connecting youth to police and furthering the goals of Community Based Policing.
Norwalk Police Department
Officer Jean-Maxime Sixto
Born in Haiti, Jean-Maxime Sixto (“Max”) and his family moved to the United States in 1971, making a home in Norwalk. He, like many other young adults from Norwalk, worked at Stew Leonard’s. This is where Max honed his gift of conversation. The Norwalk Police Department hired Max Sixto in January of 1997 and, in 1999, he was assigned to the Community Police Unit. Officers in the unit worked out of the South Norwalk Train Station, patrolling and conducting outreach to specific areas of South Norwalk.
Officer Sixto was assigned to the Roodner Court Housing Complex. At the time, Roodner Court was plagued with drug trafficking and violent crime. The close relationships Max formed with many members of the Roodner Court community were invaluable in combating such crime. That is, many individuals living in Roodner Court had enough trust in Max that they were willing to share information about the rampant crime occurring in their community allowing the police to bring many of the offenders to justice. The positive effect of Officer Sixto’s constant presence in Roodner Court and his incredibly warm personality were apparent the minute he entered the Housing Complex, whether by bicycle or on foot. Today, Max cannot step foot in Roodner Court without a resident yelling, “Hey Sixto,” followed by a high-five or a hug.
In addition, Officer Sixto has worked with members of the Roodner Court community to beautify the complex with bright flower plantings. This had a ripple effect within the complex, with residents pitching in to clean up and to even create two vegetable gardens within the complex. Officer Sixto also spends a lot of time at the Roodner Court Learning Center, which provides afterschool education opportunities for the youth in Roodner Court. Officer Sixto reads to the kids and is a positive role model for them. He also spends time with the kids at Grass Roots Tennis and meets with the junior counselors to discuss leadership issues. Officer Sixto recently noticed that a young resident of Roodner Court did not have a bicycle, and so he arranged to bring a donated bicycle to the little girl, bringing smiles to her face and to that of her grandmother.
In addition to his duties in Roodner Court, Officer Sixto is often called up to assist with other community outreach events such as Coffee with a Cop, NPD Ice Cream Day, Community Police Holiday Party, SoNo Alliance, Norwalk Open House and many more.
Max is a decorated officer receiving numerous awards and recognitions from not only the Norwalk Police Department, but from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office. Officer Sixto has received numerous letters of appreciation from community members as well as recognition for Community Service from the Seventh Day Adventist Church.
Officer Max Sixto is the definition of a Community Police Officer. His hard work and dedication to the community are second to none. He has spent his career working hard to make Norwalk a safer place while creating police-community partnerships.
Stamford Police Department
Officer Silas Redd
Officer Silas Redd has over 30 years’ experience with the Stamford Police Department and his commitment to the City of Stamford has never wavered. Over the past 30 years, Officer Redd has helped the police department create and sustain a strong relationship with the community. This is what we now call “Community Policing.” Officer Redd has always taken the initiative to foster those relationships long before it became a catch phrase. It is who he is!
Officer Redd is currently assigned to the Stamford Police Department’s Youth Bureau where he coordinates the Truancy Initiative Program. He is also a founding member of the Juvenile Review Board, a member of the Absentee Review Board, a founding member of the Community Oriented Policing Program, and a founding member of the Stamford Police Boys Leadership Group. Officer Redd also conducts mediations between troubled youths and families. Officer Redd even takes it a step further and works diligently to assist those youth and families in seeking services that will have a positive influence with the families.
Officer Redd is an advocate for cultivating strong lines of communication between the community and police by working closely with and meeting with community leaders. This is achieved through forums at churches, schools and community events. Officer Redd has built lasting friendships and partnerships within the community that enable him to remedy and effectively address a host of issues. Moreover, Officer Redd has been very instrumental in mentoring youth and stressing the importance of education, being a positive influence and making good choices. Officer Redd also spends a great deal of time educating other Stamford officers as to what the community wants and expects from the police.
Officer Redd has demonstrated an unrivaled passion in educating youth and guiding them in the right direction. He continues to be an asset for the department, but more importantly the community. Officer Redd is a credit to the Stamford Police Department and his commitment to Stamford should be emulated by all.
University of Connecticut Police Department
Officer Justin Cheney
Officer Justin Cheney joined the University of Connecticut Police Department in June of 2015 and immediately began a focus on community oriented policing work. A long-standing member of the community and alumnus of UConn, Justin quickly became a friendly and recognizable member of the patrol operations section and exemplified the best tenets of community partnership and problem solving. In 2016, he became a member of the UConn PD Safety Techniques and Awareness Resource Team, the unit of officers that provide educational programming and events across the community. As a member of the S.T.A.R.T., he provides ongoing instruction and facilitation to the UConn and surrounding community in the areas of self-defense, general safety, primary prevention education to reduce sexual violence, team building and communication workshops, and more. In the summer of 2017, Justin joined the Community Outreach Unit to engage in community education on a full-time basis.
Justin’s enthusiasm and innovative approach to community policing strategies helped him to propose a dynamic new program in the spring of 2018. After considerable research in the area, he launched the UCPD Community Outreach Dog program. With the generous support and assistance of Canine Companions for Independence, Justin was partnered with Tildy, a facility dog. Tildy, a two-year-old yellow lab and golden retriever mix, was trained by CCI as a facility dog and Justin was matched and trained with her at CCl’s Northeast Training Center in April of 2018.
Tildy and Justin now spend their days engaging with the community in person and through Tildy’s increasingly popular lnstagram page where Justin has masterfully captured Tildy’s “voice” as a means to connect with people. Justin and Tildy act as the police department’s outreach ambassadors and have promoted creative new ways to build bridges to the community. Tildy can also act in a limited supportive role to victims of violent crime if her skills would assist in building comfort with the investigative process for the community. Officer Cheney and Tildy are on lnstagram (uconnpd_officertildy) and have over 900 followers. Tildy is absolutely adorable and a hit with our community. (They like Justin too!)
On a daily basis, Officer Justin Cheney has been an example of the best community oriented policing strategies in our profession and his innovative approach to the Community Outreach Dog program has opened doors in an unprecedented way.
University of New Haven Police Department
Sergeant Luis Dos Santos
Since joining the University of New Haven Police Department, after a long career at Western Connecticut State University, Sergeant Luis Dos Santos has become an integral part of the University community. He has shown leadership and initiative in handling traditional police duties and excelled in community outreach. He regularly volunteers to spearhead new outreach initiatives. The UNHPD’s primary community policing vehicle is its Residence Hall Officer (RHO) program. Each officer is assigned as a liaison to a Residence Hall, provides regular interaction with the students and staff, provides support to residence assistants, follows up on police incidents and provides educational programs for residents. Sgt. Dos Santos regularly attends Hall staff meetings, provides educational programs to residents such as “Think before you Drink” and proper behavior at off campus parties. He assists other officers in presenting career development programs to our public safety discipline students, who are a significant proportion of the student body. He also assists officers in presenting student safety and self-defense programs. Some of the outreach programs that he has personally initiated or spearheaded are:
“Drunk Sundaes,” where students don “drunk goggles” and operate a controlled golf cart ride to truly appreciate how impaired driving can affect one’s judgement; “ARC Dream Orientation” for special needs students, and “Do NUT Drink and Drive,” a Public Safety Block Party to kick off National Campus Safety Month.
As a supervisor, Sgt. Dos Santos, provides guidance and assistance to other officers with community outreach programs. As both a supervisor and officer, he diligently follows up on all incidents within his areas of responsibility. His interventions and educational talks have mitigated many small problems before they became major issues. His reputation for thoroughness and commitment to the community is well known throughout the University and the city of West Haven.
In short, Sgt. Dos Santos has become an overall role model and mentor for the University’s student population.
Waterbury Police Department
Sergeant Ryan Bessette
Lisa Velez
Sergeant Ryan Bessette serves as Officer in Charge of the Community Relations Division at the Waterbury Police Department. This division encompasses various agencies including the Neighborhood Police Officers, Mounted Unit Officers, Police Activities League (PAL) and a civilian Blight Control Team. This collaborative approach focuses on reaching out to 23 active neighborhood associations, addressing quality of life-related issues, building and fostering relationships with the community and providing mentorship/positive programs for Waterbury youths. Sergeant Bessette works tirelessly with a team of dedicated officers and civilian personnel to serve the needs of the community and educate residents, all while preventing and solving crimes.
Lisa Velez, President of the Brooklyn Neighborhood Association, has also served as President of the Waterbury Neighborhood Council, which consists of various active neighborhood associations. She has created a dedicated working relationship with Sergeant Bessette and the entire Community Relations Division. Lisa has been a longtime advocate of community oriented policing and served to facilitate community engagement. Importantly, she continues to help strengthen the relationship between the Neighborhood Council and the Waterbury Police Department.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Phillip M. Coyne, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announced that ZAYA POWELL, 25, of Waterbury, waived her right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer in New Haven to a false statement offense stemming from her creation of false COVID-19 vaccine records for several individuals.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Powell worked as a Data Entry Specialist for Griffin Health Services Corporation (“Griffin Health”) and, in that role, she traveled to various COVID-19 vaccination sites in Connecticut operated by Griffin Health. Although Powell did not administer the vaccines, she had access to the Griffin Health electronic health record system and to stacks of blank COVID-19 vaccination cards. She also had access to the Vaccine Administration Management System (VAMS), a database developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that tracked COVID-19 vaccine administration.
Between August and October 2021, Powell created fraudulent vaccination records in VAMS for 14 different individuals. The records indicated that each of the 14 individuals had received a single-dose Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccination at a Griffin Health location when, in fact, none had received any COVID-19 vaccination from Griffin Health or any other health care provider. In order to create the fraudulent vaccination record, Powell entered each individual’s name and date of birth into VAMS. She also created fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination cards for each of the 14, and distributed the fraudulent cards to the individuals or to their family members or co-workers. The fraudulent cards included lot numbers of genuine vaccines that were administered to other Griffin Health patients.
The investigation revealed that four of the 14 individuals who received fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination cards created by Powell were state employees who worked at the Southbury Training School, a Connecticut Department of Developmental Services facility located in Southbury. The four Southbury Training School employees were “state employees” or “state hospital employees” within the scope of Executive Order 13G issued by Governor Lamont, and were therefore required to meet the vaccination requirements of the Executive Order by September 27, 2021. The four employees sought and used the fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination cards created by Powell and the false entries in VAMS created by Powell to falsely document that they had received a COVID-19 vaccination.
Powell pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement relating to a health care matter, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. Judge Meyer scheduled sentencing for November 4, 2022.
Powell is released on a $25,000 bond pending sentencing.
This investigation is being conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG).
U.S. Attorney Avery thanked the Connecticut Department of Public Health, the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services, and Griffin Health for their assistance in the investigation.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Sheldon.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that JEFFREY SLOCUM, 55, of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, waived his right to be indicted and pleaded guilty yesterday before U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill in Bridgeport to one count of health care fraud and one count of violating the federal anti-kickback statute.
According to court documents and statements made in court, from 2017 to 2022, Slocum, a former resident of East Lyme, was a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) with an office located at 300 State Street in New London. In 2020, the Connecticut Medicaid program (“Medicaid”) notified Slocum that Medicaid was going to audit certain claims for psychotherapy services Slocum had billed to Medicaid between March 2018 and February 2020. As part of its audit, Medicaid requested patient records for approximately 100 individual psychotherapy services Slocum had billed to Medicaid.
In March 2021, Medicaid notified Slocum that the audit had determined that he had received over $225,000 in payments from Medicaid for services that he had not documented. Medicaid told Slocum it would begin to collect the overpayment by deducting the overpayment in installments from future payments Medicaid would make to Slocum. Once Slocum learned the results of the audit and that he would have to pay the money back to Medicaid, he began submitting fraudulent claims to Medicaid for psychotherapy services that he never provided. All of the fraudulent claims Slocum submitted to Medicaid represented that he had personally provided the nonexistent services.
As part of his plea, Slocum admitted that from March 1, 2020 to February 24, 2022, he submitted fraudulent claims to Medicaid totaling $695,048.
In pleading guilty, Slocum also admitted that he engaged in a scheme to pay kickbacks to his Medicaid patients in order to induce them to receive psychotherapy services from him. Slocum paid these kickbacks to patients in the form of cash payments, money orders, and Wal-Mart and VISA gift cards.
Judge Underhill scheduled sentencing for November 8, at which time Slocum faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. Slocum also has agreed to pay full restitution to Medicaid.
This investigation is being conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the assistance of the Connecticut Department of Social Services. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Sheldon and Auditor Susan Spiegel.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Chief State’s Attorney’s Office, and Attorney General’s Office meet regularly as part of The Medicaid Fraud Working Group. The Working Group also includes representatives from the Connecticut Department of Social Services; the Connecticut Department of Public Health; the Drug Control Division of the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection; the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI. The Working Group reviews pending issues and cases, identifies trends that might indicate fraudulent activity, and coordinates efforts for maximum results.
People who suspect health care fraud are encouraged to report it by calling 1-800-HHS-TIPS.
New Haven – John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that LESTER BURROUGHS, 61, of Torrington, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden to 33 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for misappropriating approximately $575,000 from investment clients, most of whom were elderly.
Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the sentencing occurred via videoconference.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Burroughs owned Burroughs Investment Group, a full-service financial consulting firm based in Torrington, and was a registered securities broker with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Beginning in at least 2012 and continuing through 2019, Burroughs misrepresented to certain clients that their money would be invested in legitimate guaranteed investment contracts. Instead, he used his clients’ money to pay business expenses and other clients’ “guaranteed” investment returns.
Burroughs began the scheme after an investment he recommended to a client failed to materialize an expected return and Burroughs feared the possible financial repercussions to his business should that client file a complaint with regulatory agencies. Burroughs then stole approximately $370,000 from an elderly client in order to pay the nonexistent returns of the failed investment to the first client. In 2018, after the elderly client’s daughter demanded a full accounting of her mother’s investments, Burroughs tried to cover up his conduct by providing his client’s daughter with fraudulent accounting statements and documents. When his client’s daughter demanded money, Burroughs provided the client with funds he had stolen from three other unsuspecting clients, all of whom were told by Burroughs that he was investing their money in guaranteed investment contracts.
Through this scheme, Burroughs defrauded clients of a total of approximately $575,000. Burroughs is required to pay full restitution.
On December 4, 2019, Burroughs pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud.
Burroughs, who is released on a $100,000 bond, is scheduled to report to prison on June 1, 2020.
This matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather L. Cherry.
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed related civil charges against Burroughs. (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lester Burroughs, 3:19-cv-1913).
The Justice Department has established a National Elder Fraud Hotline to provide services to seniors who may be victims of financial fraud. The Hotline is staffed by experienced case managers who can provide personalized support to callers. Case managers assist callers with reporting the suspected fraud to relevant agencies and by providing resources and referrals to other appropriate services as needed. When applicable, case managers will complete a complaint form with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) for Internet-facilitated crimes and submit a consumer complaint to the Federal Trade Commission on behalf of the caller. The Hotline’s toll free number is 833-FRAUD-11 (833-372-8311).
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Administrator Carmen Rottenberg, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, announced that MEMET BEQIRI, also known as Matt Beqiri, 32, of Tolland, waived his right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today in Hartford federal court to a charge related to his meat processing business’s falsification of numerous E. coli test results.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Beqiri is the owner and general manager of New England Meat Packing, LLC, located in Stafford Springs, a federally inspected business engaged in the slaughtering, processing, selling and transporting of meat and meat food products for human consumption. Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approved Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan for New England Meat Packing, the company is required to perform one generic E. coli carcass swab for every 300 animals slaughtered and to periodically collect ground beef samples for E. coli testing.
Between November 3, 2016 and September 9, 2017, Beqiri authorized the preparation and submission in the company’s Lab Sample Report binder, which the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) reviews, a total of 36 documents relating to 52 separate carcass swabs and ground beef samples on behalf of New England Meat Packing. The 36 documents were each on the letterhead of a certified laboratory that tests food product samples to ensure safety and wholesomeness and signed by the laboratory director. The documents stated that the required E. coli testing of samples submitted by New England Meat Packing had been conducted and completed, and that all 52 samples tested negative for E. coli. In fact, none of the 52 carcass swabs and samples had been submitted or tested by the identified laboratory, or any other laboratory, and the 36 documents were fraudulently prepared using laboratory letterhead obtained from previous testing that New England Meat Packing had conducted with that laboratory.
During the investigation of this matter, Beqiri admitted to an investigator with USDA’s FSIS that the documents were fraudulent, and that his business did not collect and submit the samples to the certified laboratory because he did not correlate the potential impact on food safety with his sampling program and wanted to create the appearance he was compliant with all USDA HACCP testing requirements.
There have been no known instances of illnesses reported by anyone who consumed the meat in any of the states where the meat was distributed.
“After this defendant’s fraudulent conduct was uncovered, he admitted to an investigator that he ignored the USDA’s meat testing requirements because he considered the process to be an inconvenience and a nuisance,” said U.S. Attorney Durham. “Such reckless conduct seriously endangers public safety and will be prosecuted.”
“FSIS investigators are on the job protecting public health every day,” said Carmen Rottenberg, FSIS Administrator. “Our work is critical to protect American families and the food supply, and we will not tolerate blatant disregard for food safety laws.”
Beqiri pleaded guilty to one count of making and using a false document and aiding and abetting, a charge that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson on November 12, 2019. Beqiri is released on a $25,000 bond pending sentencing.
The plea agreement filed today in association with Beqiri’s guilty plea does not address potential civil administrative consequences for New England Meat Packing’s failure to test the meat it distributed.
The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Investigations, Enforcement and Audit. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah R. Slater.
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
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that KYLE J. WINE, 42, of Lee’s Summit, Missouri, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Omar A. Williams in Hartford to 132 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for fraud and money laundering offenses stemming from a $7 million scheme related to his commercial aircraft supply businesses.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Wine owned and operated various companies engaged in the business of commercial aircraft supply, including JetPro International, LLC (“JetPro”), Nexus Aviation, and Turbotech Partners. From at least 2018 through 2021, Wine defrauded investors in aircraft-related transactions. Wine used victims' money to purchase aircraft airframes and engines, sold the aircraft airframes and engines, hid the resulting profits from his investors, and diverted invested funds for his personal use.
As part of the scheme, Wine induced an investment firm based in Darien, Connecticut, to invest $4.5 million in the purported acquisition and sale of an Airbus A320-231 airframe and two aircraft engines. Wine sent fictitious correspondence to the victim investor and created fake domain names and email accounts. He then used those email accounts to send fraudulent correspondence to the victim investor to trick the investor into believing that JetPro was attempting to sell the Airbus airframe and the two aircraft engines to certain buyers. In fact, Wine had already sold one engine for $2.45 million and the Airbus airframe for $1.3 million. He never informed the victim investor of those sales and shared none of the proceeds of the sales with the investor. Wine also used some of these invested funds to purchase another aircraft engine without the knowledge of the victim investor.
In total, Wine’s fraud scheme caused $7,152,666.67 in losses to 13 separate victims.
Judge Williams will issue a restitution order after additional court proceedings. Wine’s restitution obligation will be reduced to reflect money recouped through the sale of any asset that was part of his fraud scheme.
On July 19, 2022, Wine pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering. In November 2022, while he was released on bond pending sentencing, Wine created and submitted counterfeit bank statements in an attempt to obtain a loan to purchase a Cadillac Escalade from a Kansas auto dealership. He has been detained since December 20, 2022, when his bond was revoked.
This is Wine’s second federal conviction. In 2010, Wine pleaded guilty in the Western District of Missouri to fraud and money laundering offenses stemming from a mortgage fraud scheme that involved approximately $4.4 million in fraudulent loans on 86 properties. He received a sentence of probation for those offenses.
This matter was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan N. Francis.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that ISAIAH HALLIDAY, 19, of Hartford, pleaded guilty yesterday before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer in New Haven to robbery and firearm offenses related to a scheme that victimized several individuals who sought to purchase items over mobile classifieds web apps.
According to court documents and statements made in court, between September and November 2017, more than a dozen robberies occurred in Hartford during which individuals lured would-be customers with real or nonexistent items posted to mobile classifieds web apps, such as Offer Up, Letgo and Craigslist, through the use of a fake account. Upon arrival, the customers were robbed of money and cell phones. In all of the robberies, assailants brandished what victims described to be a firearm.
On November 11, 2017, Hartford Police officers responded to a location on Blue Hills Avenue in response to a report of a male suffering from a gunshot wound. Upon arrival, the victim stated that he had traveled to Mansfield Street in Hartford to meet with an individual he contacted on Offer Up to purchase an iPhone. When he arrived, Halliday approached the front passenger door of his vehicle and pointed a black handgun at him. After the victim attempted to drive away, Halliday fired one round at him, striking him in the right forearm.
Halliday pleaded guilty to one count of interference with commerce by robbery, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years, and one count of use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, an offense that carries a consecutive term of imprisonment of 10 years to life.
In pleading guilty, Halliday admitted that he and several associates were involved in other similar armed robberies and attempted robberies between September and November 2017.
Halliday has been detained since his arrest on November 17, 2017.
Judge Meyer scheduled sentencing for August 7, 2019.
This matter is being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Hartford Police Department. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that on November 30, 2017, a federal grand jury in Hartford returned a six-count indictment charging ISAIAH HALLIDAY, 18, of Hartford, with robbery and firearm offenses stemming from a scheme that victimized several individuals who sought to purchase items over mobile classifieds web apps.
HALLIDAY has been detained since his arrest on November 17. He appeared today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam in New Haven, entered a plea of not guilty to the charges, and was ordered detained.
According to court documents and statements made in court, between September and November 2017, more than a dozen robberies have occurred in Hartford during which individuals lured would-be customers with real or nonexistent items posted to mobile classifieds web apps, such as Offer Up, Letgo and Craigslist, through the use of a fake account. Upon arrival, the customers were robbed of money and cell phones. In all of the robberies, assailants brandished what victims described to be a firearm.
It is alleged that on November 11, 2017, Hartford Police officers responded to a location on Blue Hills Avenue in response to a report of a male suffering from a gunshot wound. Upon arrival, the victim stated that he had traveled to Mansfield Street in Hartford to meet with an individual he contacted on Offer Up to purchase an iPhone. When he arrived, an individual, who was subsequently identified as HALLIDAY, approached the front passenger door of his vehicle and pointed a black handgun at him. After the victim attempted to drive away, HALLIDAY fired one round at him, striking him in the right forearm.
The indictment charges HALLIDAY with two counts of interference with commerce by robbery, for robberies that occurred on September 19 and October 16; one count of attempt to interfere with commerce by robbery and one count of use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, for the robbery that occurred on November 11 describe above; one count of attempt to interfere with commerce by robbery for another attempted robbery on November 11, and one count of attempt to interfere with commerce by robbery on November 17.
Each of the robbery offenses carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years, and the firearm offenses carries a consecutive term of imprisonment of at least 10 years and a maximum term of imprisonment of life.
U.S. Attorney Durham stressed that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. Charges are only allegations, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This matter is being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Hartford Police Department. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey M. Stone.
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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
The Justice Department announced today that it has reached an agreement with Low Taek Jho, also known as Jho Low, members of his family, and trust entities Low established (collectively, the “Low Parties”) that resolves two civil forfeiture cases.
The department previously brought the cases against assets that it alleges were acquired by Low and his family using funds allegedly embezzled from 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), Malaysia’s sovereign investment development fund. The Low Parties have also agreed to cooperate in the transfer to Malaysia of certain other assets located in Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore that are linked to 1MDB funds. Under the agreement, the department will coordinate with foreign partners to facilitate the liquidation and return of these assets to Malaysia.
According to the civil forfeiture complaints, from 2009 through 2015, more than $4.5 billion in funds belonging to 1MDB were allegedly misappropriated by high-level officials of 1MDB and their associates, including Low, through a criminal conspiracy involving international money laundering and bribery. 1MDB was created by the government of Malaysia to promote economic development in Malaysia through global partnerships and foreign direct investment. Its funds were intended to be used to improve the well-being of the Malaysian people.
The agreement resolves the civil forfeiture action against a luxury apartment in Paris and artwork located in Switzerland by artists Andy Warhol and Claude Monet, which Low purchased for approximately $35 million in total. In addition, parties agreed to return to Malaysia real property and cash in bank accounts valued at approximately $67 million located in Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Singapore. The United States will release a total of $3.5 million to the trust entities to pay for legal fees and costs associated with the properties. Under the agreement, none of these fees may be returned to Low or his family members.
Prior to this settlement, in total, the United States has returned or assisted in the return to Malaysia of over $1.4 billion in assets associated with the international money laundering, embezzlement, and bribery scheme.
Low separately faces charges in the Eastern District of New York for allegedly conspiring to launder billions of dollars embezzled from 1MDB and for conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by allegedly paying bribes to various Malaysian and Emirati officials, and in the District of Columbia for allegedly conspiring to make and conceal foreign and conduit campaign contributions during the United States presidential election in 2012. This agreement does not release any entity or individual from filed or potential criminal charges.
The FBI’s International Corruption Squads in New York City and Los Angeles and IRS Criminal Investigation are investigating the case.
Trial Attorneys Barbara Levy, Sean Fern, Jonathan Baum, and Joshua Sohn of the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (MLARS) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Galatzan for the Central District of California are prosecuting the case, with significant assistance from the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and MLARS’ Program Management Staff.
The Justice Department also appreciates the significant assistance provided over the course of this investigation by the Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia, the Royal Malaysia Police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the Attorney-General’s Chambers of Singapore, the Singapore Police Force-Commercial Affairs Department, the Office of the Attorney General and the Federal Office of Justice of Switzerland, and French authorities.
The Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative is led by a team of dedicated prosecutors in MLARS, in partnership with federal law enforcement agencies, and often with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, to forfeit the proceeds of foreign official corruption. Individuals with information about possible proceeds of foreign corruption located in or laundered through the United States should contact federal law enforcement or send an email to kleptocracy@usdoj.gov or https://tips.fbi.gov/.
Leonard C Boyle, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and David Sundberg, Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, today announced that a federal grand jury in New Haven returned an indictment yesterday charging Connecticut State Senator DENNIS A. BRADLEY, JR., and his former campaign Treasurer, JESSICA MARTINEZ, with multiple offenses related to defrauding Connecticut’s program for publicly funding political campaigns during Bradley’s 2018 run for State Senate.
Bradley and Martinez appeared today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector in New Haven, entered pleas of not guilty to the charges, and were released on bonds in the amount of $300,000 and $250,000, respectively.
As alleged in the indictment, Bradley, 38, of Bridgeport, has been a member of the Connecticut State Senate since 2018, representing the 23rd State Senate District. Martinez, 39, of Bridgeport, was the Treasurer for Bradley’s 2018 State Senate campaign. In Bradley’s 2018 campaign for State Senate, Bradley, Martinez, and others conspired to defraud the Connecticut State Election Enforcement Commission (“SEEC”), the Citizens’ Election Fund, and the State of Connecticut by making misrepresentations concerning Bradley’s compliance with state election law and the requirements and restrictions of the Citizens’ Election Program (“CEP”), a voluntary public election-financing program under which candidates can apply to SEEC for grants to fund their primary and general election campaigns.
“Candidates for public office must be held to a high standard of conduct, especially when they apply for public funds for their campaigns,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Boyle. “It is alleged that these defendants not only broke the rules at the outset of Mr. Bradley’s first campaign for the State Senate, but then engaged in an extensive cover up to conceal their illegal behavior and to receive additional public funds. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our FBI partners are committed to holding public officials to account.”
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation is committed to protecting the citizens of Connecticut against all forms of illegal fraud and deception,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sundberg. “Maintaining the integrity of our state and federal election processes is crucial to ensuring the will of the voting public is carried out based on truth and fairness.”
The indictment alleges that Bradley, Martinez, and their co-conspirators violated CEP rules by holding a March 15, 2018, campaign event at Dolphin’s Cove restaurant in Bridgeport, then engaged in a scheme to trick SEEC into awarding his campaign undeserved CEP grants by making misrepresentations and omissions to disguise the nature of that event.
It is alleged that, although CEP rules imposed a $2,000 limit on Bradley’s expenditure of personal funds, Bradley used personal funds to pay Dolphin’s Cove $5,597.31 for the campaign event, and used personal funds for other campaign expenditures related to the event, including printed invitations and a band.
It is further alleged that, in an attempt to hide the March 15 campaign event from SEEC, Bradley, Martinez and their co-conspirators claimed it was a “Thank You Party” for friends and clients of Bradley’s law firm, Bradley, Denkovich & Karayiannis, P.C., also known as BDK Law Group.
It is alleged that, although at least eight donors gave to Bradley’s campaign at the Dolphin’s Cove event, Bradley’s and Martinez’s co-conspirators altered and falsified the contribution cards so that none were dated March 15, 2018.
It is further alleged that, although CEP rules required complete and truthful disclosures of Bradley’s campaign contributions and expenditures, in April, May and June 2018, Bradley’s campaign filed Itemized Campaign Finance Disclosure Statements with SEEC that omitted that Bradley had held a campaign event on March 15, 2018 at Dolphin’s Cove restaurant, omitted that Bradley had incurred approximately $6,307 in expenses for the event, omitted that Bradley had accepted multiple campaign contributions at the event, and misrepresented the dates of those March 15, 2018 contributions.
It is further alleged that on May 24, 2018, Bradley and Martinez applied for a CEP grant to fund Bradley’s Democratic primary campaign. On July 10, 2018, relying on the false and misleading information contained in Bradley’s filings, SEEC issued the campaign $84,140 in public funds. On August 14, 2018, Bradley won the Democratic primary with approximately 55 percent of the vote.
It is further alleged that, after issuing a CEP primary grant to Bradley, SEEC began investigating a citizen complaint regarding Bradley’s campaign, including the campaign event at Dolphin’s Cove. On August 21, 2018, Bradley emailed a letter to SEEC in which he denied all the allegations in the citizen complaint as “frivolous and manipulative.” In that letter, Bradley falsely stated, “On March 15, 2018, BDK hosted a Client Appreciation event at Dolphin’s Cove restaurant[.] … This was in no shape or form a political event. … In fact, we did not collect any donations at this event and have no donations dated 03/15/2018.”
It is further alleged that on October 12, 2018, after Bradley and Martinez attempted to obtain an additional $95,710 CEP grant to fund Bradley’s general election campaign, Martinez made similar false statements under oath to SEEC. SEEC eventually denied Bradley a general election grant. On November 6, 2018, Bradley won the general election with approximately 87 percent of the vote.
It is further alleged that Martinez made similar false statements to investigating FBI special agents in March 2020, and under oath before the grand jury in September 2020.
Bradley is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and five counts of wire fraud, and Martinez is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, five counts of wire fraud, one count of making a false statement to the FBI, and one count of making a false declaration before the grand jury. The conspiracy and fraud offenses carry a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years on each count, and the false statement and declaration offenses carry a maximum term of imprisonment of five years on each count.
Acting U.S. Attorney Boyle stressed that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. Charges are only allegations, and each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jonathan N. Francis and David E. Novick.
Leonard C Boyle, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that DOUGLAS SENERTH, 32, of South Windsor, pleaded guilty today in New Haven federal court to a fraud offense related to his theft of approximately $679,000 from his grandparents.
According to court documents and statements made in court, between 2011 and 2019, Senerth defrauded his grandmother and his late grandfather by falsely claiming to be a college student and inducing them to give him approximately $419,000 to pay for nonexistent college tuition and other related expenses, and an additional approximately $260,000 by falsely claiming that he would invest their money into an investment fund run by one of his nonexistent professors. As part of the scheme, Senerth created fraudulent college transcripts, letters and email accounts that he used to corroborate his lies.
Senerth has been detained in state custody since February 10, 2021, when he was arrested on unrelated charges.
Senerth pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. He is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny in Hartford on May 17, 2022.
Senerth has agreed to pay restitution of $679,944.
This investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather Cherry.
The Justice Department has established a National Elder Fraud Hotline to provide services to seniors who may be victims of financial fraud. The Hotline is staffed by experienced case managers who can provide personalized support to callers. Case managers assist callers with reporting the suspected fraud to relevant agencies and by providing resources and referrals to other appropriate services as needed. When applicable, case managers will complete a complaint form with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) for Internet-facilitated crimes and submit a consumer complaint to the Federal Trade Commission on behalf of the caller. The Hotline’s toll-free number is 833-FRAUD-11 (833-372-8311). For more information, please visit: https://ovc.ojp.gov/program/stop-elder-fraud/providing-help-restoring-hope.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, David Sundberg, Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Joleen D. Simpson, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation in New England, announced that KYLE J. WINE, 41, of Lee’s Summit, Missouri, waived his right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today via videoconference before U.S. District Judge Omar A. Williams in Hartford to fraud and money laundering offenses stemming from a $7 million scheme related to his commercial aircraft supply businesses.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Wine owned and operated various companies engaged in the business of commercial aircraft supply, including JetPro International, LLC (“JetPro”), Nexus Aviation, and Turbotech Partners. From at least 2018 through 2021, Wine defrauded investors in aircraft-related transactions. Wine used victims' money to purchase aircraft airframes and engines, sold the aircraft airframes and engines, hid the
resulting profits from his investors, and diverted invested funds for his personal use.
As part of the scheme, Wine induced an investment firm based in Darien, Connecticut, to invest $4.5 million in the purported acquisition and sale of an Airbus A320-231 airframe and two aircraft engines. Wine sent fictitious correspondence to the victim investor, and created fake domain names and email accounts and the used those email accounts to send fraudulent correspondence to the victim investor, to trick the investor into believing that JetPro was attempting to sell the Airbus airframe and the two aircraft engines to certain buyers. In fact, Wine had already sold one engine for $2.45 million and the Airbus airframe for $1.3 million. He never informed the victim investor of those sales and shared none of the proceeds of the sales with the investor. Wine also used some of these invested funds to purchase another aircraft engine without the knowledge of the victim investor.
In total, Wine’s fraud scheme caused $7,152,666.67 in losses to 13 separate victims.
Wine pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years, and one count of money laundering, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
Wine is released on bond pending sentencing, which is not scheduled.
This matter is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan N. Francis.
Leonard C Boyle, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that BRYAN WILSON, 39, of Madison, waived his right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to one count of tampering with a consumer product.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Wilson was employed as a nurse by The Vascular Experts, a Connecticut company that performs outpatient medical procedures. As part of his duties, Wilson was responsible for conducting sedations on patients and he had access to the secure area in his workplace that contained vials of drugs used as anesthetics, including fentanyl. In August and September 2021, Wilson took vials of fentanyl that were intended to be used to formulate infusion for patients. He used a syringe to withdraw the fentanyl from the vials and reinjected saline into the vials so that it would appear as if none of the narcotics were missing.
Judge Shea scheduled sentencing for May 5, 2022, at which time Wilson faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
Wilson was released on bond pending sentencing. He has surrendered his nursing license.
This matter is being investigated by the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations; the DEA’s Hartford Diversion Control Division; and the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Drug Control Division. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Miller.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that JEFFREY SLOCUM, 56, of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Stefan R. Underhill in Bridgeport to three years of probation, the first 12 months of which he must serve in home confinement under electronic monitoring, for health care fraud and kickback offenses.
According to court documents and statements made in court, from 2017 to 2022, Slocum, a former resident of East Lyme, Connecticut, was a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) with an office located at 300 State Street in New London. In 2020, the Connecticut Medicaid program (“Medicaid”) notified Slocum that Medicaid was going to audit certain claims for psychotherapy services Slocum had billed to Medicaid between March 2018 and February 2020. As part of its audit, Medicaid requested patient records for approximately 100 individual psychotherapy services Slocum had billed to Medicaid.
In March 2021, Medicaid notified Slocum that the audit had determined that he had received over $225,000 in payments from Medicaid for services that he had not documented. Medicaid told Slocum it would begin to collect the overpayment by deducting the overpayment in installments from future payments Medicaid would make to Slocum. Once Slocum learned the results of the audit and that he would have to pay the money back to Medicaid, he began submitting fraudulent claims to Medicaid for psychotherapy services that he never provided. All of the fraudulent claims Slocum submitted to Medicaid represented that he had personally provided the nonexistent services.
Slocum also engaged in a scheme to pay kickbacks to his Medicaid patients in order to induce them to receive psychotherapy services from him. Slocum paid these kickbacks to patients in the form of cash payments, money orders, and Wal-Mart and VISA gift cards.
Judge Underhill ordered Slocum to pay restitution of $695,048 to Medicaid.
On August 16, 2023, Slocum pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud and one count of violating the federal anti-kickback statute.
This investigation was conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the assistance of the Connecticut Department of Social Services. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Sheldon and Auditor Susan Spiegel.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Chief State’s Attorney’s Office, and Attorney General’s Office meet regularly as part of The Medicaid Fraud Working Group. The Working Group also includes representatives from the Connecticut Department of Social Services; the Connecticut Department of Public Health; the Drug Control Division of the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection; the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI. The Working Group reviews pending issues and cases, identifies trends that might indicate fraudulent activity, and coordinates efforts for maximum results.
People who suspect health care fraud are encouraged to report it by calling 1-800-HHS-TIPS.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Phillip M. Coyne, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, announced that ZAYA POWELL, 25, of Waterbury, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer in New Haven to three years of probation for creating false COVID-19 vaccine records for several individuals. Judge Meyer also ordered Powell to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 200 hours of community service.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Powell worked as a Data Entry Specialist for Griffin Health Services Corporation (“Griffin Health”) and, in that role, she traveled to various COVID-19 vaccination sites in Connecticut operated by Griffin Health. Although Powell did not administer the vaccines, she had access to the Griffin Health electronic health record system and to stacks of blank COVID-19 vaccination cards. She also had access to the Vaccine Administration Management System (VAMS), a database developed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that tracked COVID-19 vaccine administration.
Between August and October 2021, Powell created fraudulent vaccination records in VAMS for 14 different individuals. The records indicated that each of the 14 individuals had received a single-dose Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccination at a Griffin Health location when, in fact, none had received any COVID-19 vaccination from Griffin Health or any other health care provider. In order to create the fraudulent vaccination record, Powell entered each individual’s name and date of birth into VAMS. She also created fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination cards for each of the 14, and distributed the fraudulent cards to the individuals or to their family members or co-workers. The fraudulent cards included lot numbers of genuine vaccines that were administered to other Griffin Health patients.
The investigation revealed that four of the 14 individuals who received fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination cards created by Powell were state employees who worked at the Southbury Training School, a Connecticut Department of Developmental Services facility located in Southbury. The four Southbury Training School employees were “state employees” or “state hospital employees” within the scope of Executive Order 13G issued by Governor Lamont, and were therefore required to meet the vaccination requirements of the Executive Order by September 27, 2021. The four employees sought and used the fraudulent COVID-19 vaccination cards created by Powell and the false entries in VAMS created by Powell to falsely document that they had received a COVID-19 vaccination.
On August 12, 2022, Powell pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement relating to a health care matter.
The four Southbury Training School employees were charged in state court and their cases are pending.
This investigation was conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG).
U.S. Attorney Avery thanked the Connecticut Department of Public Health, the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services, the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney, and Griffin Health for their assistance in the investigation.
This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Sheldon.
Leonard C Boyle, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced DONNA MONTICONE, 49, of Oxford, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in New Haven for tampering with fentanyl vials intended for patients at the fertility clinic where she was employed. Monticone was ordered to serve three years of supervised release, four weekends of incarceration, and three months of home confinement.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Monticone was a nurse employed by the Yale Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility clinic (“Yale REI clinic”) in Orange. As part of her responsibilities at the Yale REI, Monticone ordered and inventoried a variety of narcotics used by the clinic, including fentanyl, which is a component of a cohort of drugs used by Yale physicians during outpatient surgical procedures to anesthetize patients and protect them from feeling pain.
In June 2020, Monticone began stealing fentanyl for her own use. She accessed secure storage areas and took vials of fentanyl, used a syringe to withdraw the narcotics from the vials, and reinjected saline into vials so that it would appear as if none of the narcotics were missing. The investigation revealed that approximately 75 percent of the fentanyl given to patients at the Yale REI clinic from June to October 2020 was adulterated with saline. Some of the vials contained diluted fentanyl, while others contained no drug at all and contained just saline.
Monticone knew that the adulterated vials of fentanyl she replaced at the Yale REI clinic would be used in surgical procedures, and that the absence of an anesthetic during an outpatient procedure may cause serious bodily injury to the patient. Monticone initially injected herself with the fentanyl while working at the Yale REI clinic and eventually began taking the vials home. She would refill the vials with sterile saline at home, bring them back to the clinic, and reintroduce them into the stock of fentanyl available for use during surgical procedures. On approximately November 1, 2020, Monticone brought approximately 175 vials of fentanyl that she had taken from the Yale REI clinic and discarded them in waste containers at the clinic.
Numerous victims submitted letters to Judge Hall describing physical pain they experienced during their procedures at the Yale REI clinic during this time period.
On March 2, 2021, Monticone pleaded guilty to one count of tampering with a consumer product.
Monticone has surrendered her nursing license.
This matter was investigated by the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations; the DEA’s New Haven Tactical Diversion Squad; and the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Drug Control Division. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Miller.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that HEATHER ALFONSO, 46, of South Carolina, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton in New Haven to three years of probation for engaging in a kickback scheme related to fentanyl spray prescriptions.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Alfonso formerly resided in Connecticut and was employed as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) at Comprehensive Pain and Headache Treatment Center (CPHTC) located in Derby. As part of her practice, Alfonso prescribed various controlled substances, including Subsys, a fentanyl-based sublingual spray that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration solely for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients. Subsys was manufactured and sold by Insys Therapeutics, an Arizona-based pharmaceutical company.
A review of Medicare Part D prescription drug events for prescribers of Subsys showed that Alfonso was responsible for approximately $2.5 million in claims and was the highest prescriber of the drug in Connecticut. Interviews with several of Alfonso’s patients, who were Medicare Part D beneficiaries and were prescribed Subsys, revealed that most of them did not have cancer, but had taken the drug to treat their chronic pain. Medicare and most private insurers did not pay for Subsys unless the patient had an active cancer diagnosis and an explanation that the drug was needed to manage the patient’s cancer pain.
An investigation revealed that Insys Therapeutics representatives were inducing medical practitioners around the country to prescribe Subsys over other similar medications by paying the medical practitioners to participate in hundreds of sham “Speaker Programs.” The Speaker Programs, which were typically held at high-end restaurants, were ostensibly designed to gather licensed healthcare professionals who had the capacity to prescribe Subsys and educate them about the drug. In truth, the events were usually just a gathering of friends and co-workers, most of whom did not have the ability to prescribe Subsys, and no educational component took place. “Speakers” were paid a fee that ranged from $1,000 to several thousand dollars for attending these dinners. At times, the sign-in sheets for the Speaker Programs were forged to make it appear that the programs had an appropriate audience of healthcare professionals.
Between approximately January 2013 and March 2015, Insys Therapeutics paid Alfonso approximately $83,000 to act as a “speaker” for more than 70 dinner programs. In many instances, the dinner programs were only attended by Alfonso and an Insys Therapeutics sales representative. In other instances, the programs were attended by CPHTC staff and Alfonso’s friends, none of whom had licenses to prescribe controlled substances.
Alfonso’s conduct resulted in a loss to Medicare of $2,564.501.64. Judge Arterton ordered Alfonso to pay full restitution, jointly and severally with other defendants convicted in this scheme.
On June 25, 2015, Alfonso pleaded guilty to one count of receiving kickbacks in relation to a federal healthcare program.
Several other individuals affiliated with Insys Therapeutics, and medical practitioners involved in this kickback scheme, have been charged and convicted in the District of Connecticut and in other Districts across the U.S. On May 2, 2019, a federal jury in Boston found John N. Kapoor, the founder and former Executive Chairman of Insys Therapeutics, and four other former Insys executives guilty of racketeering conspiracy.
In sentencing Alfonso, Judge Arterton credited Alfonso’s prompt acceptance of responsibility, her assistance to the government’s prosecution of other defendants, and the extensive testimony she provided during the trial in the District of Massachusetts.
In June 2019, Insys Therapeutics agreed to pay a total of $225 million to resolve criminal and civil investigations of the company.
The investigation in the District of Connecticut has been conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the assistance of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Tactical Diversion Squad. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Douglas P. Morabito, Sarah P. Karwan and Richard M. Molot.
U.S. Attorney Durham encouraged individuals who suspect health care fraud to report it by calling the Health Care Fraud Task Force (203) 785-9270 or 1-800-HHS-TIPS.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that BRYAN WILSON, 40, of Madison, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 24 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for tampering with fentanyl vials at the company where he was employed. Judge Shea also ordered Wilson to pay a $5,000 fine.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Wilson was employed as a nurse by The Vascular Experts, a Connecticut company that performs outpatient medical procedures. As part of his duties, Wilson was responsible for conducting sedations on patients and he had access to the secure area in his workplace that contained vials of drugs used as anesthetics, including fentanyl. In August and September 2021, Wilson took vials of fentanyl that were intended to be used to formulate infusion for patients. He used a syringe to withdraw the fentanyl from the vials and reinjected saline into the vials so that it would appear as if none of the narcotics were missing. When another nurse at the company noticed that vials had been tampered with, and Wilson was subsequently questioned by company officials, Wilson admitted that he stole the fentanyl and used it to treat a medical condition.
On February 10, 2022, Wilson pleaded guilty to one count of tampering with a consumer product.
Wilson, who is released on bond, is required to report to prison on January 9, 2023.
Wilson has surrendered his nursing license.
This matter was investigated by the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations; the DEA’s Hartford Diversion Control Division; and the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Drug Control Division. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Miller.
Leonard C Boyle, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and David Sundberg, Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, today announced that a grand jury in New Haven has returned an indictment charging DOUGLAS SENERTH, 32, of South Windsor, with offenses related to his alleged theft of approximately $679,000 from his grandparents.
The indictment was returned on June 7, 2021. Senerth appeared today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson in Hartford and entered a plea of not guilty. He has been detained in state custody since February 10, 2021, when he was arrested on unrelated charges.
As alleged in the indictment, Senerth defrauded his grandmother and his late grandfather by falsely claiming to be a college student and inducing them to give him approximately $419,000 to pay for nonexistent college tuition and other related expenses, and an additional approximately $260,000 by falsely claiming that he would invest their money into an investment fund run by one of his nonexistent professors. As part of the scheme, Senerth created fraudulent college transcripts, letters and email accounts that he used to corroborate his lies.
The indictment charges Senerth with three counts of wire fraud, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years on each count.
This investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather Cherry.
The Justice Department has established a National Elder Fraud Hotline to provide services to seniors who may be victims of financial fraud. The Hotline is staffed by experienced case managers who can provide personalized support to callers. Case managers assist callers with reporting the suspected fraud to relevant agencies and by providing resources and referrals to other appropriate services as needed. When applicable, case managers will complete a complaint form with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) for Internet-facilitated crimes and submit a consumer complaint to the Federal Trade Commission on behalf of the caller. The Hotline’s toll-free number is 833-FRAUD-11 (833-372-8311).
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that MEMET BEQIRI, also known as Matt Beqiri, 33, of Tolland, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson in Hartford to two years of probation for fabricating E. coli test results at his meat processing business. Judge Thompson also ordered Beqiri to pay a $15,000 fine.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Beqiri is the owner and general manager of New England Meat Packing, LLC, located in Stafford Springs, a federally inspected business engaged in the slaughtering, processing, selling and transporting of meat and meat food products for human consumption. Pursuant to the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan developed and implemented by New England Meat Packing to comply with regulatory requirements, the company is required to perform one generic E. coli carcass swab for every 300 animals slaughtered and to periodically collect ground beef samples for E. coli testing.
Between November 3, 2016 and September 9, 2017, Beqiri authorized the preparation and submission in the company’s Lab Sample Report binder, which the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reviews, a total of 36 documents relating to 52 separate carcass swabs and ground beef samples on behalf of New England Meat Packing. The 36 documents were each on the letterhead of a certified laboratory that tests food product samples to ensure safety and wholesomeness and signed by the laboratory director. The documents stated that the required E. coli testing of samples submitted by New England Meat Packing had been conducted and completed, and that all 52 samples tested negative for E. coli. In fact, none of the 52 carcass swabs and samples had been submitted or tested by the identified laboratory, or any other laboratory, and the 36 documents were fraudulently prepared using laboratory letterhead obtained from previous testing that New England Meat Packing had conducted with that laboratory.
During the investigation of this matter, Beqiri admitted to an investigator with USDA’s FSIS that the documents were fraudulent, and that his business did not collect and submit the samples to the certified laboratory because he did not correlate the potential impact on food safety with his sampling program and wanted to create the appearance he was compliant with all USDA HACCP testing requirements.
There have been no known instances of illnesses reported by anyone who consumed the meat in any of the states where the meat was distributed.
On August 20, 2019, Beqiri pleaded guilty to one count of making and using a false document and aiding and abetting.
The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Investigations, Enforcement and Audit. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah R. Slater.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Administrator Carmen Rottenberg, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, announced that DEBBIE L. SMITH, 60, of Ellington, waived her right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today in Hartford federal court to a charge related to a Connecticut meat processing business’s falsification of numerous E. coli test results.
According to court documents and statements made in court, New England Meat Packing, LLC, located in Stafford Springs, is a federally inspected business engaged in the slaughtering, processing, selling and transporting of meat and meat food products for human consumption. Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approved Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan for New England Meat Packing, the company is required to perform one generic E. coli carcass swab for every 300 animals slaughtered and to periodically collect ground beef samples for E. coli testing.
Memet Bequiri is the owner and general manager of New England Meat Packing, and Smith is/was the HACCP Coordinator/Quality Control Officer for the company. Between November 3, 2016 and September 9, 2017, Smith prepared and submitted in the company’s Lab Sample Report binder, which the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) reviews, a total of 36 documents relating to 52 separate carcass swabs and ground beef samples on behalf of New England Meat Packing. The 36 documents were each on the letterhead of a certified laboratory that tests food product samples to ensure safety and wholesomeness and signed by the laboratory director. The documents stated that the required E. coli testing of samples submitted by New England Meat Packing had been conducted and completed, and that all 52 samples tested negative for E. coli. In fact, none of the 52 carcass swabs and samples had been submitted or tested by the identified laboratory, or any other laboratory, and the 36 documents were fraudulently prepared using laboratory letterhead obtained from previous testing that New England Meat Packing had conducted with that laboratory.
The investigation revealed that Beqiri authorized the preparation and submission of the fabricated E. coli test results. During an interview with a USDA’s FSIS investigator, Beqiri admitted that the documents were fraudulent, and that his business did not collect and submit the samples to the certified laboratory because he did not correlate the potential impact on food safety with his sampling program and wanted to create the appearance he was compliant with all USDA HACCP testing requirements.
There have been no known instances of illnesses reported by anyone who consumed the meat in any of the states where the meat was distributed.
Smith pleaded guilty to one count of making and using a false document, a charge that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years.
Smith is released on bond pending sentencing, which is scheduled for December 10, 2019.
On August 20, 2019, Beqiri pleaded guilty to one count of making and using a false document and aiding and abetting. He awaits sentencing.
The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office of Investigations, Enforcement and Audit. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah R. Slater.
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
Leonard C Boyle, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that CORTNEY DUNLAP, 37, of Burlington, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley in Bridgeport to 57 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for operating a wide-ranging scheme that defrauded the Connecticut Medicaid Program of more than $1.3 million.
According to court documents and statements in court, from 2014 to 2020, Dunlap was a Licensed Professional Counselor with offices located on Brainard Road in Hartford. Dunlap also owned two entities, Inspirational Care and KEYS Program Inc., through which he managed group homes in Hartford, Bristol, Cromwell and Waterbury, including residences for women and children who were victims of domestic abuse.
From August 2018 through October 2020, Dunlap engaged in a scheme to defraud the Connecticut Medicaid Program by submitting claims for psychotherapy services that were purportedly provided to Medicaid clients. The vast majority of the claims were for occasions and dates of service when no psychotherapy services of any kind had been provided to the Medicaid clients identified in the claims. On a limited number of occasions, some of the services were rendered by unlicensed individuals who were not qualified or licensed to provide psychotherapy.
The Connecticut Medicaid program suspended Dunlap as a Medicaid provider on approximately April 28, 2020, and, on May 7, 2020, federal law enforcement agents executed a court-authorized search of Dunlap’s Hartford offices. Dunlap subsequently billed Medicaid for psychotherapy services through Inspirational Care for services that which were not provided, using the provider number of a licensed clinical social worker who did not provide the services and was not aware that her provider number was being used to bill for the nonexistent services.
Dunlap required tenants of the group homes operated or managed by Inspirational Care and KEYS program to provide copies of the Medicaid member cards for the tenants and their children as a condition of the tenants residing at the group homes. Dunlap then used these Medicaid member numbers to bill Medicaid for psychotherapy services that were not provided to the tenants or their children. Dunlap used the Medicaid member numbers of approximately 65 tenants or their children to bill Medicaid for fraudulent services, and Medicaid paid Dunlap approximately $543,117 for psychotherapy services that were not provided to these individuals.
In February 2019, the New Haven Public Schools hired Dunlap as a guidance counselor at the New Haven Adult and Continuing Education Center. In February 2020, Dunlap accessed a database containing personal identifying information of students and former students enrolled at New Haven Adult and Continuing Education, many of whom Dunlap did not have any professional relationship with and had never met. Dunlap used the information he acquired to determine whether the students were insured by Medicaid and, if so, identified the students’ Medicaid member identification numbers. He then billed Medicaid for fraudulent psychotherapy services that were never provided to the students. Dunlap used the personal identifying information and Medicaid member numbers of approximately 135 New Haven Adult and Continuing Education students to bill Medicaid for fraudulent services, and was paid a total of approximately $593,383 by Medicaid for these claims.
Dunlap also fraudulently billed Medicaid for psychotherapy services purportedly provided to employees of Inspirational Care when no such services were provided, and submitted fraudulent claims to Medicaid for psychotherapy services purportedly provided to members of his family when no such services were provided.
Judge Dooley ordered to Dunlap to pay restitution to Medicaid in the amount of $1,313,322.
U.S. Attorney Boyle noted that Connecticut Department of Social Services, working in close cooperation with law enforcement, suspended Medicaid payments to Dunlap and recovered $337,777.63 that Dunlap was slated to receive from Medicaid. The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Civil Division also seized and forfeited $412,415.20 from Dunlap’s bank accounts. Dunlap has made an additional restitution payment of $20,000, leaving a restitution obligation of $543,129.17.
Dunlap was arrested on a criminal complaint on October 14, 2020. On June 4, 2021, he pleaded guilty to one count of health care fraud.
Dunlap, who is released on bond, is required to report to prison on April 25.
This investigation has been conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the assistance of the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Education, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney’s Office, the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and the Connecticut Department of Social Services.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Sheldon with the assistance of Auditor Susan N. Spiegel.
Leonard C Boyle, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that CORTNEY DUNLAP, 36, of Burlington, waived his right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley in Bridgeport to health care fraud related to a wide-ranging scheme that defrauded the Connecticut Medicaid Program of more than $1.3 million.
According to court documents and statements in court, from 2014 to 2020, Dunlap was a Licensed Professional Counselor with offices located on Brainard Road in Hartford. Dunlap also owned two entities, Inspirational Care and KEYS Program Inc., through which he managed group homes in Hartford, Bristol, Cromwell and Waterbury, including residences for women and children who were victims of domestic abuse.
From August 2018 through October 2020, Dunlap engaged in a scheme to defraud the Connecticut Medicaid Program by submitting claims for psychotherapy services that were purportedly provided to Medicaid clients. The vast majority of the claims were for occasions and dates of service when no psychotherapy services of any kind had been provided to the Medicaid clients identified in the claims. On a limited number of occasions, some of the services were rendered by unlicensed individuals who were not qualified or licensed to provide psychotherapy.
The Connecticut Medicaid program suspended Dunlap as a Medicaid provider on approximately April 28, 2020, and, on May 7, 2020, federal law enforcement agents executed a court-authorized search of Dunlap’s Hartford offices. Dunlap subsequently billed Medicaid for psychotherapy services through Inspirational Care for services that which were not provided, using the provider number of a licensed clinical social worker who did not provide the services and was not aware that her provider number was being used to bill for the nonexistent services.
Dunlap required tenants of the group homes operated or managed by Inspirational Care and KEYS program to provide copies of the Medicaid member cards for the tenants and their children as a condition of the tenants residing at the group homes. Dunlap then used these Medicaid member numbers to bill Medicaid for psychotherapy services that were not provided to the tenants or their children. Dunlap used the Medicaid member numbers of approximately 65 tenants or their children to bill Medicaid for fraudulent services, and Medicaid paid Dunlap approximately $543,117 for psychotherapy services that were not provided to these individuals.
In February 2019, the New Haven Public Schools hired Dunlap as a guidance counselor at the New Haven Adult and Continuing Education Center. In February 2020, Dunlap accessed a database containing personal identifying information of students and former students enrolled at New Haven Adult and Continuing Education, many of whom Dunlap did not have any professional relationship with and had never met. Dunlap used the information he acquired to determine whether the students were insured by Medicaid and, if so, identified the students’ Medicaid member identification numbers. He then billed Medicaid for fraudulent psychotherapy services that were never provided to the students. Dunlap used the personal identifying information and Medicaid member numbers of approximately 135 New Haven Adult and Continuing Education students to bill Medicaid for fraudulent services, and was paid a total of approximately $593,383 by Medicaid for these claims.
Dunlap also fraudulently billed Medicaid for psychotherapy services purportedly provided to employees of Inspirational Care when no such services were provided, and submitted fraudulent claims to Medicaid for psychotherapy services purportedly provided to members of his family when no such services were provided.
Dunlap was arrested on a criminal complaint on October 14, 2020.
Judge Dooley scheduled sentencing for August 27, 2021, at which time Dunlap faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years. Dunlap has agreed to pay restitution to Medicaid in the amount of $1,313,322. To help satisfy his restitution obligation, Dunlap has agreed to forfeit a bank account containing approximately $152,000.
This investigation has been conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the assistance of the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Education, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney’s Office, the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and the Connecticut Department of Social Services.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David J. Sheldon with the assistance of Auditor Susan N. Spiegel.
Leonard C Boyle, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that ISAIAH HALLIDAY, 21, of Hartford, was sentenced yesterday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer in New Haven to 108 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for committing violent robberies that victimized several individuals who sought to purchase items over mobile classifieds web apps.
According to court documents and statements made in court, between September and November 2017, Halliday and others committed several robberies in Hartford during they lured would-be customers with real or nonexistent items posted to mobile classifieds web apps, such as Offer Up, Letgo and Craigslist, through the use of a fake account. Upon arrival, the customers were robbed of money and cell phones. On each occasion, Halliday threatened the victims with a handgun or what appeared to be a handgun.
On November 11, 2017, Hartford Police officers responded to a location on Blue Hills Avenue in response to a report of a male suffering from a gunshot wound. Upon arrival, the victim stated that he had traveled to Mansfield Street in Hartford to meet with an individual he contacted on Offer Up to purchase an iPhone. When he arrived, Halliday approached the front passenger door of his vehicle and pointed a black handgun at him. After the victim attempted to drive away, Halliday fired one round at him, striking him in the right forearm.
Also, in September 2017, three victims were shot at as they fled the scene of a robbery. During a robbery in October 2017, Halliday put a gun, or what appeared to be a gun, to a victim’s chest and demanded the victim’s money and cell phone.
Halliday has been detained since his arrest on November 17, 2017. On February 16, 2021, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery.
This matter was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the Hartford Police Department. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Geoffrey M. Stone.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, today announced that NICHOLAS SEPESKO, 70, of Hamden, was arrested yesterday on a federal criminal complaint charging him with mailing threatening letters, some of which contained white powder, to an individual.
Following his arrest, Sepesko appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam in New Haven and was released on a $20,000 bond.
As alleged in court documents and statements made in court, between October 2018 and November 2020, Sepesko mailed multiple letters to an individual threatening to harm the victim and the victim’s spouse. None of the letters contained a return address. The last three letters Sepesko mailed to the victim contained not only threats, but also a white powdery substance. In the most recent letter, Sepesko wrote that the white powder could be rat poison or Ricin.
The three letters containing the unknown powdery substance lead to physical responses by federal, state and local law enforcement and environmental protection agencies. It is alleged that laboratory analysis of the substance contained in a letter mailed by Sepesko in early October contained calcium carbonate. Test results of the substance contained in the other two letters are pending.
The complaint charges Sepesko with mailing threatening communications, and conveying false information and hoax. Each offense carries a maximum term of imprisonment of five years, a $250,000 fine, restitution and, with respect to a hoax, repayment of reimbursement for any municipal response.
U.S. Attorney Durham noted that this alleged crime and other like it will be vigorously prosecuted, as hoax letters containing white powder cause emotional distress for recipients and consume valuable time and resources of our first responders.
U.S. Attorney Durham stressed that a complaint is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. Charges are only allegations and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This investigation is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and Wallingford Police Department, with the assistance of the Connecticut State Police, Hamden Police Department and Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter S. Jongbloed.
John H. Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation in New England, announced that DAVID ADAMS, 58, of Old Saybrook, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant in Hartford to 90 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for failing to pay more than $4.8 million in federal income taxes.
“This defendant engaged the IRS in a decades-long wild goose chase to prevent the agency from collecting the taxes he was required by law to pay,” said U.S. Attorney Durham. “He hid income, repeatedly lied to IRS collections officers, filed frivolous claims for due process hearings, and bounced numerous checks. He also misled, and then attempted to implicate, his accountant. All the while, he had the ability to pay and lived more lavishly than the vast majority of Americans. Our nation’s tax collection system requires all of us to pay what we owe, or else our society cannot function. This is an appropriate sentence for an individual who failed to pay his taxes for a good portion of his working life, and likely will never pay all that he owes the citizens of this country.”
“For years, Mr. Adams obstructed IRS efforts to collect back taxes through a series of criminal acts,” said IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge O’Connell. “As a successful entrepreneur, he earned millions and amassed significant wealth, yet willfully chose to evade his significant tax obligations. Honest taxpayers bear the brunt of this crime, through reduced government services and a greater tax burden. IRS-CI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to hold tax cheats accountable, by prosecuting those who undermine the integrity of our tax system.”
According to court documents and statements made in court, in the early 1980s, and then continuing from 1996 onward, Adams was substantially delinquent in filing his tax returns and paying amounts owed to the IRS. Starting at least as early as the 1982 tax year, Adams repeatedly engaged with IRS collections officers tasked with trying to get Adams into compliance with the tax laws. Although IRS collections officers repeatedly advised Adams about his obligations to pay estimated taxes, he continually failed to pay those taxes on time or in sufficient amounts.
As part of this tax fraud scheme, Adams engaged the services of a certified public accountant to prepare his personal tax returns beginning in approximately 1993, and then gave the accountant false information about his estimated payments, about his income, and then blamed the accountant for making errors on his returns as an excuse for why he should not be required to pay the tax due.
In 2002, Adams sold an online floral business, for which he owed over $1.3 million in tax. Adams failed to pay that tax liability and instead hung the return up in collections, in a collections due process hearing, and in tax court, while blaming his accountant for purported “errors” when none were made. As of today, Adams still has a seven-figure balance on that tax year.
In June 2011, Adams sold his partnership interest in another online floral business and received $4,708,419.20 wired into his personal bank account as part of the net proceeds owed to him as a result of the sale. Although he knew that he owed substantial taxes on that amount, Adams concealed the income from his accountant and failed to declare the income on his 2011 tax return. At the same time, Adams represented to an IRS revenue officer who was responsible for collecting Adams’s delinquent tax payments and securing Adams’s overdue tax returns, that he had hoped to have funds to pay down his back tax liability (including tax liability associated with the 2002 sale), but that nothing had been “panning out.” Adams failed to disclose to the revenue officer that he had received $4,708,419.20 in cash less than three weeks earlier.
In June 2012, Adams received an additional $1,320,609.59 into his personal bank account as net proceeds of the 2011 sale. Although he knew that he owed substantial taxes on that amount, Adams failed to disclose the income to his accountant, and failed to declare it on his tax return for that year.
Adams also misled the U.S. District Court and U.S. Probation Office in the case by failing to disclose on his financial affidavit a bank account containing more than $500,000.
In total, Adams engaged in a more than 20-year effort to inhibit the IRS’s efforts to collect back taxes from him. Among other things, he bounced checks to the IRS; told IRS collections officers that payment had been sent when it had not; promised to pay delinquent tax liabilities in full and then delayed payment, made only partial payment, failed to pay at all, or paid off one liability while leaving another liability unpaid; claimed that he lacked funds to pay his delinquent tax but failed to disclose that he had access to enough cash to fully pay back his tax liabilities; filed false and fraudulent returns with the IRS; overstated the amounts of estimated taxes paid to the IRS, and failed to declare more than $6 million in income to the IRS.
Adams was arrested on a federal criminal complaint on April 14, 2016. On October 10, 2017, he pleaded guilty to two counts of tax evasion, three counts of making and subscribing a false tax return, and one count of attempting to interfere with the administration of the IRS laws.
Judge Bryant ordered Adams to pay back taxes, interest and penalties for tax years 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012, which total $4,872,172.91. Interest and penalties will continue to accrue until his tax obligation is paid.
At the conclusion of today’s sentencing proceeding, Adams, who had been released on bond, was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service.
U.S. Attorney Durham noted that federal prisoners are required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentenced term of imprisonment and are not eligible for parole.
Adams’s criminal history includes two prior federal convictions. In 1986, he was convicted of credit card fraud for submitting more than $588,000 in fraudulent credit card sales drafts through his floral business over a three-month period in 1985. In 1992, he was convicted of two counts of failure to file tax returns, relating to his failing to file federal income tax returns for the 1984 through 1986 tax years.
This matter was investigated by the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Susan L. Wines and Jennifer R. Laraia.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that DOUGLAS SENERTH, 33, of South Windsor, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny in Hartford to 18 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for stealing approximately $679,000 from his grandparents. Judge Chatigny also ordered Senerth to serve the first six months of his supervised release in home confinement.
According to court documents and statements made in court, between 2011 and 2019, Senerth defrauded his grandmother and his late grandfather by falsely claiming to be a college student and inducing them to give him approximately $419,000 to pay for nonexistent college tuition and other related expenses, and an additional approximately $260,000 by falsely claiming that he would invest their money into an investment fund run by one of his nonexistent professors. As part of the scheme, Senerth created fraudulent college transcripts, letters and email accounts that he used to corroborate his lies.
Judge Chatigny ordered Senerth to pay restitution of $679,944.
Senerth has been detained in state custody since February 10, 2021, when he was arrested on unrelated charges. On February 23, 2022, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud.
Senerth’s state case is pending. His federal sentence will begin when his state case is resolved.
This investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather Cherry.
The Justice Department has established a National Elder Fraud Hotline to provide services to seniors who may be victims of financial fraud. The Hotline is staffed by experienced case managers who can provide personalized support to callers. Case managers assist callers with reporting the suspected fraud to relevant agencies and by providing resources and referrals to other appropriate services as needed. When applicable, case managers will complete a complaint form with the Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) for Internet-facilitated crimes and submit a consumer complaint to the Federal Trade Commission on behalf of the caller. The Hotline’s toll-free number is 833-FRAUD-11 (833-372-8311). For more information, please visit: https://ovc.ojp.gov/program/stop-elder-fraud/providing-help-restoring-hope.
The Justice Department today announced the results of its efforts over the past year to protect older adults from fraud and exploitation. During the past year, the Department and its law enforcement partners tackled matters that ranged from mass-marketing scams that impacted thousands of victims to bad actors scamming their neighbors. Substantial efforts were also made over the last year to return money to fraud victims. Today, the Department also announced it is expanding its Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force to amplify efforts to combat scams originating overseas.
“We are intensifying our efforts nationwide to protect older adults, including by more than tripling the number of U.S. Attorneys’ offices participating in our Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force dedicated to disrupting, dismantling and prosecuting foreign-based fraud schemes that target American seniors,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This expansion builds on the Justice Department’s existing work to hold accountable those who steal funds from older adults, including by returning those funds to the victims where possible.”
“Elder fraud schemes are becoming more sophisticated and more dastardly, and our office will continue to prioritize the prosecution of individuals who victimize vulnerable individuals,” said U.S. Attorney Vanessa Roberts Avery. “We are also committed to engaging with older members of our community to help them avoid scams that put them at great financial risk.”
From September 2021 to September 2022, Justice Department personnel and its law enforcement partners pursued approximately 260 cases involving more than 600 defendants, both bringing new cases and advancing those previously charged.
Elder fraud cases prosecuted in the District of Connecticut include:
U.S. v. Clason – Matthew Clason, of Cheshire, was a registered investment advisor who stole more than $600,000 from an elderly client. In December 2021, he was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment.
U.S. v. Fasasi, et al – Farouq Fasasi and several associates in Connecticut were involved in lottery scams and romance fraud scams that defrauded primarily elderly victims across the country of more than $5 million. One elderly Connecticut resident lost more than $1 million. Fasasi and five others were convicted of various charges stemming from the schemes. In August 2022, Fasasi was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment.
U.S. v. Senerth – Douglas Senerth, of South Windsor, stole approximately $679,000 from his grandparents by falsely claiming to be a college student and inducing them to give him money to pay for nonexistent college tuition and other related expenses, and funds that he claimed he would invest on their behalf. In July 2022, he was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment.
U.S. v. Singh – Jhanannie Singh, of Queens, New York, stole hundreds of thousands of dollars in U.S. Savings Bonds from an elderly woman for whom she provided home health services, and then enlisted others to help her sell the bonds. Singh pleaded guilty in August 2022 and awaits sentencing.
U.S. v. Ivy – Gregory Ivy, of New Haven, stole blank checks from a retired woman for whom he performed odd jobs. Ivy forged the victims signature on some of the checks and deposit them into his personal account, and also provided checks to another individual, who further shared the victim’s bank account information. The victim lost more than $479,000 through this scheme, and Ivy personally stole more than $162,000. Ivy pleaded guilty in September 2022 and awaits sentencing.
As part of the District of Connecticut’s elder fraud efforts, it engages in outreach to the community and industry to raise awareness about scams and exploitation and preventing victimization. This year, members of the office have made presentations at several community senior centers in Connecticut, AARP-CT roundtables and law enforcement conferences.
The Justice Department also highlighted three other efforts: expansion of the Transnational Elder Fraud Task Force, success in returning money to victims and efforts to combat grandparent scams.
The Department announced that, as part of its continuing efforts to protect older adults and bring perpetrators of fraud schemes to justice, it is expanding the Transnational Elder Fraud Strike Force, adding 14 new U.S. Attorney’s Offices. Expansion of the Strike Force will help to coordinate the Department’s ongoing efforts to combat largest and most harmful fraud schemes that target or disproportionately impact older adults.
In the past year, the Justice Department has notified over 550,000 people that they may be eligible for remission payments. Notifications were made to consumers whose information was sold by one of three data companies prosecuted by the Department and were later victims of “sweepstakes” or “astrology” solicitations that falsely promised prizes or individualized services in return for a fee. More than 150,000 of those victims cashed checks totaling $52 million, and thousands more are eligible to receive checks. Also notified were consumers who paid fraudsters perpetrating person-in-need scams and job scams via Western Union. In the past year, the Department has identified and contacted over 300,000 consumers who may be eligible for remission. Since March 2020, more than 148,000 victims have received more than $366 million as a result of a 2017 criminal resolution with Western Union for the company’s willful failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and its aiding and abetting of wire fraud.
Over the past year, the Justice Department pursued cases against the perpetrators of “grandparent scams,” otherwise known as “person-in-need scams.” These scams typically begin when a fraudster, often based overseas, contacts an older adult and poses as either a grandchild, other family member or someone calling on behalf of a family member. Call recipients are told that their family member is in jeopardy and is urgently in need of money. When recently sentencing one of eight perpetrators of a grandparent scam indicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal judge described such scams “heartbreakingly evil.” The Department is working with government partners and others to raise awareness about these schemes.
Reporting from consumers about fraud and fraud attempts is critical to law enforcements efforts to investigate and prosecute schemes targeting older adults. If you or someone you know is age 60 or older and has been a victim of financial fraud, help is available the National Elder Fraud Hotline: 1-833-FRAUD-11 or 833-372-8311. This Department of Justice Hotline, managed by the Office for Victims of Crime, is staffed by experienced professional who provide personalized support to callers by assessing the needs of the victim and identifying next steps. Case managers will identify appropriate reporting agencies, provide information to callers to assist them in reporting or connect them with agencies, and provide resources and referrals on a case-by-case basis. The hotline is staffed seven days a week from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.[ET]. English, Spanish and other languages are available. More information about the Department’s elder justice efforts can be found on the Department’s Elder Justice website, www.elderjustice.gov.
Some of the cases that comprise today’s announcement are charges, which are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Leonard C Boyle, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced DONNA MONTICONE, 49, of Oxford, waived her right to be indicted and pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall to one count of tampering with a consumer product.
Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the court proceeding occurred via videoconference.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Monticone was a nurse employed by the Yale Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility clinic (“Yale REI clinic”) in Orange. As part of her responsibilities at the Yale REI, Monticone ordered and inventoried a variety of narcotics used by the clinic, including fentanyl, which is a component of a cohort of drugs used by Yale physicians during outpatient surgical procedures to anesthetize patients and protect them from feeling pain.
In June 2020, Monticone began stealing fentanyl for her own use. She accessed secure storage areas and took vials of fentanyl, used a syringe to withdraw the narcotics from the vials, and reinjected saline into vials so that it would appear as if none of the narcotics were missing. The investigation revealed that approximately 75 percent of the fentanyl given to patients at the Yale REI clinic from June to October 2020 was adulterated with saline. Some of the vials contained diluted fentanyl, while others contained no drug at all and contained just saline.
In pleading guilty, Monticone admitted that knew that the adulterated vials of fentanyl she replaced at the Yale REI clinic would be used in surgical procedures, and that the absence of an anesthetic during an outpatient procedure may cause serious bodily injury to the patient. Monticone further admitted that she initially injected herself with the fentanyl while working at the Yale REI clinic and eventually began taking the vials home. She would refill the vials with sterile saline at home, bring them back to the clinic, and reintroduce them into the stock of fentanyl available for use during surgical procedures. On approximately November 1, 2020, Monticone brought approximately 175 vials of fentanyl that she had taken from the Yale REI clinic and discarded them in waste containers at the clinic.
Judge Hall scheduled sentencing for May 25, 2021, at which time Monticone faces a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.
Monticone is released on a $50,000 bond pending sentencing. She has surrendered her nursing license.
This matter is being investigated by the Food and Drug Administration, Office of Criminal Investigations; the DEA’s New Haven Tactical Diversion Squad; and the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, Drug Control Division. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Miller.
Vanessa Roberts Avery, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Jean Pierre Njock, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the New Haven Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, today announced that an investigation of a fraud scheme targeting vulnerable victims has resulted in the forfeiture of approximately 151 Bitcoins, as well as other digital assets.
According to court documents, in approximately October 2020, overseas individuals began targeting vulnerable victims, including first generation U.S. citizens and elderly persons, through phone calls by pretending to be members of U.S. law enforcement agencies and telling the victims that their identity had been compromised. The overseas individuals used computer programs to make it appear as if their phone calls were coming from legitimate government sources. After gaining the victims’ trust, the overseas individuals requested transfers of money for “safekeeping” with the promise that the victims would receive their money, plus interest, when the perpetrators of the nonexistent identity fraud were captured. Once the overseas individuals had access to the victims’ money, they moved the money through multiple bank accounts and converted the money to digital currency in the form of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Law enforcement investigators traced the victims’ money through the various accounts and identified a digital wallet holding Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies that had been purchased with the victims’ money. The U.S. Attorney’s Office applied for and received a civil asset forfeiture seizure warrant for the digital wallet and, following the seizure, filed a civil asset forfeiture complaint against the digital assets, which resulted in an order of forfeiture from the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office used the civil asset forfeiture procedure because the digital assets constituted the proceeds of wire fraud. Although law enforcement continues to investigate the overseas individuals behind this scam, those individuals remain at large. Civil asset forfeiture allowed the government to recover the victims’ money while the investigation is ongoing.
“This office and our law enforcement partners are prepared to use all tools available to investigate, disrupt, and prosecute fraud schemes, especially scams that target vulnerable populations," said U.S. Attorney Avery. "We will continue to be at the forefront of investigating and seizing digital assets such as cryptocurrency when those assets are linked to criminal behavior. Individuals committing crimes will not be able to hide the proceeds of those crimes digitally or elsewhere."
“No matter which cyber tools and methods criminal actors create to defraud members of the public, we at the FBI, U.S. Marshals and the Secret Service dedicate all resources to identifying those responsible and bringing them to justice no matter where they are in the world,” said FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Njock. “We encourage everyone to conduct due diligence to verify authenticity of who they are dealing with when conducting business online to avoid being a victim of scams.”
This matter is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Marshals Service. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David C. Nelson.
The docket number associated with this case is 3:22-cv-01308 (JCH).
Members of the public seeking to confirm they have been contacted by an actual government employee are encouraged to call the local division of the claimed government entity and ask to be connected directly with the officer or agent they were contacted by. Victims of this scam are encouraged to file a report with their local law enforcement agency and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at ic3.gov.