Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-MA  1:19-cr-10080
Case Name:   USA v. Sidoo
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A parent in the college admissions case has pleaded guilty today in federal court in Boston.

David Sidoo, 60, of Vancouver, Canada, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton who scheduled sentencing for July 15, 2020.  Sidoo pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud.  As part of the plea, Sidoo has agreed to a sentence that includes 90 days in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In 2011, Sidoo agreed to pay $100,000 to have a co-conspirator, Mark Riddell, secretly take the SAT in place of his older son.  The following year, Sidoo agreed to pay $100,000 to have Riddell take the SAT in place of his younger son. 

Case information, including the status of each defendant, charging documents and plea agreements are available here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme.

The charge of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud provides for a sentence of up 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. 

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie A. Wright and Kristen A. Kearney of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit are prosecuting the case.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The remaining defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

###

BOSTON – A California husband and wife charged in the college admissions scandal pleaded guilty today in federal court in Boston.

Manuel Henriquez, 55, the founder of Hercules Capital, and his wife, Elizabeth Henriquez, 56, both of Atherton, Calif. pleaded guilty today to an indictment charging one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton scheduled sentencing for March 5 and Feb. 7, 2020, respectively.

Beginning in 2015, the Henriquezes conspired with Rick Singer, and others, to have their daughters’ college entrance exams corrected, thereby fraudulently inflating their scores; Elizabeth Henriquez agreed with Singer to facilitate the admission of her older daughter to Georgetown University as a purported athletic recruit.

In October 2015, co-conspirator Mark Riddell purported to proctor the SAT exam for the Henriquezes’ older daughter, but in actuality, Riddell provided her with the answers. Soon after, the Henriquezes wired $15,000 to Singer’s personal bank account and $10,000 to Singer’s for-profit college counseling business. Singer used some of that money to pay Riddell. Beginning in 2015, Elizabeth Henriquez agreed to pay Singer an amount, ultimately totaling $400,000, to facilitate their older daughter’s admission to Georgetown as a purported tennis recruit. After their daughter was admitted to Georgetown in the spring of 2016, the Henriquezes made a $400,000 donation to Singer’s sham charity, Key Worldwide Foundation, to pay for the fraud, and Singer, in turn, made payments to Ernst personally.  

In 2016 and 2017, the Henriquezes participated in the ACT and SAT cheating scheme on multiple occasions for their younger daughter in exchange for payments funneled through KWF.  

Case information, including the status of each defendant, charging documents and plea agreements are available here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme.

The charge of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud provides for a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. The charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering provides for a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the money laundering. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie A. Wright and Kristen A. Kearney of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit are prosecuting the cases.

The details contained in the court documents are allegations and the remaining defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

BOSTON – Sixteen parents involved in the college admissions scandal were charged today in Boston in a second superseding indictment with conspiring to commit fraud and money laundering in connection with a scheme to use bribery to cheat on college entrance exams and to facilitate their children’s admission to selective colleges and universities as purported athletic recruits.

The defendants, all of whom were arrested last month on a criminal complaint, are charged with conspiring with William “Rick” Singer, 58, of Newport Beach, Calif., and others, to bribe SAT and ACT exam administrators to allow a test taker to secretly take college entrance exams in place of students, or to correct the students’ answers after they had taken the exam, and with bribing university athletic coaches and administrators to facilitate the admission of students to elite universities as purported athletic recruits. 

The second superseding indictment also charges the defendants with conspiring to launder the bribes and other payments in furtherance of the fraud by funneling them through Singer’s purported charity and his for-profit corporation, as well as by transferring money into the United States, from outside the United States, for the purpose of promoting the fraud scheme.

The following defendants were charged in the second superseding indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering:

Gamal Abdelaziz, 62, aka “Gamal Aziz,” of Las Vegas, Nev.;

Diane Blake, 55, of Ross, Calif.;

Todd Blake, 53, of Ross, Calif.;

I-Hsin “Joey” Chen, 64, of Newport Beach, Calif.;

Mossimo Giannulli, 55, of Los Angeles, Calif.;

Elizabeth Henriquez, 56, of Atherton, Calif.;

Manuel Henriquez, 56, of Atherton, Calif.;

Douglas Hodge, 61, of Laguna Beach, Calif.;

Michelle Janavs, 48, of Newport Coast, Calif.;

Elisabeth Kimmel, 54, of Las Vegas, Nev.;

Lori Loughlin, 54, of Los Angeles, Calif.;

William McGlashan, Jr., 55, of Mill Valley, Calif.;

Marci Palatella, 63, of Hillsborough, Calif.;

John Wilson, 59, of Lynnfield, Mass.;

Homayoun Zadeh, 57, of Calabasas, Calif.; and

Robert Zangrillo, 52, of Miami, Fla.

Three parents—David Sidoo, 59, of Vancouver, Canada; Gregory Colburn, 61, of Palo Alto, Calif.; and Amy Colburn, 59, of Palo Alto, Calif.—were previously indicted in connection with the scheme. 

An arraignment date has not yet been scheduled. Case information, including the status of each defendant, charging documents and plea agreements are available here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/investigations-college-admissions-and-testing-bribery-scheme.

The charge of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud provides for a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. The charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering provides for a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the money laundering. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. 

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie A. Wright, and Kristen A. Kearney of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit are prosecuting the case.

BOSTON – Dozens of individuals involved in a nationwide conspiracy that facilitated cheating on college entrance exams and the admission of students to elite universities as purported athletic recruits were arrested by federal agents in multiple states this morning and charged in federal court in Boston. Athletic coaches from Yale, Stanford, USC, Wake Forest and Georgetown, among others, are implicated, as well as parents and exam administrators. 

William “Rick” Singer, 58, of Newport Beach, Calif., was charged with racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Singer owned and operated the Edge College & Career Network LLC (“The Key”) – a for-profit college counseling and preparation business – and served as the CEO of the Key Worldwide Foundation (KWF) – a non-profit corporation that he established as a purported charity.

Between approximately 2011 and February 2019, Singer allegedly conspired with dozens of parents, athletic coaches, a university athletics administrator, and others, to use bribery and other forms of fraud to secure the admission of students to colleges and universities including Yale University, Georgetown University, Stanford University, the University of Southern California, and Wake Forest University, among others. Also charged for their involvement in the scheme are 33 parents and 13 coaches and associates of Singer’s businesses, including two SAT and ACT test administrators.  

Also charged is John Vandemoer, the head sailing coach at Stanford University, Rudolph “Rudy” Meredith, the former head soccer coach at Yale University, and Mark Riddell, a counselor at a private school in Bradenton, Fla. 

The conspiracy involved 1) bribing SAT and ACT exam administrators to allow a test taker, typically Riddell, to secretly take college entrance exams in place of students or to correct the students’ answers after they had taken the exam; 2) bribing university athletic coaches and administrators—including coaches at Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, the University of Southern California, and the University of Texas—to facilitate the admission of students to elite universities under the guise of being recruited as athletes; and (3) using the façade of Singer’s charitable organization to conceal the nature and source of the bribes.   

College Entrance Exam Cheating Scheme

According to the charging documents, Singer facilitated cheating on the SAT and ACT exams for his clients by instructing them to seek extended time for their children on college entrance exams, which included having the children purport to have learning disabilities in order to obtain the required medical documentation. Once the extended time was granted, Singer allegedly instructed the clients to change the location of the exams to one of two test centers: a public high school in Houston, Texas, or a private college preparatory school in West Hollywood, Calif. At those test centers, Singer had established relationships with test administrators Niki Williams and Igor Dvorskiy, respectively, who accepted bribes of as much as $10,000 per test in order to facilitate the cheating scheme. Specifically, Williams and Dvorskiy allowed a third individual, typically Riddell, to take the exams in place of the students, to give the students the correct answers during the exams, or to correct the students’ answers after they completed the exams. Singer typically paid Ridell $10,000 for each student’s test. Singer’s clients paid him between $15,000 and $75,000 per test, with the payments structured as purported donations to the KWF charity. In many instances, the students taking the exams were unaware that their parents had arranged for the cheating.

College Recruitment Scheme

It is further alleged that throughout the conspiracy, parents paid Singer approximately $25 million to bribe coaches and university administrators to designate their children as purported athletic recruits, thereby facilitating the children’s’ admission to those universities. Singer allegedly described the scheme to his customers as a “side door,” in which the parents paid Singer under the guise of charitable donations to KWF. In turn, Singer funneled those payments to programs controlled by the athletic coaches, who then designated the children as recruited athletes – regardless of their athletic experience and abilities. Singer also made bribe payments to most of the coaches personally.

For example, during a call with one parent, Singer stated: “Okay, so, who we are…what we do is we help the wealthiest families in the U.S. get their kids into school…My families want a guarantee. So, if you said to me ‘here’s our grades, here’s our scores, here’s our ability, and we want to go to X school’ and you give me one or two schools, and then I’ll go after those schools and try to get a guarantee done.” 

As part of the scheme, Singer directed employees of The Key and the KWF to create falsified athletic “profiles” for students, which were then submitted to the universities in support of the students’ applications. The profiles included fake honors that the students purportedly received and elite teams that they purportedly played on.  In some instances, parents supplied Singer with staged photos of their children engaged in athletic activity – such as using a rowing machine or purportedly playing water polo.

Tax Fraud Conspiracy

Beginning around 2013, Singer allegedly agreed with certain clients to disguise bribe payments as charitable contributions to the KWF, thereby enabling clients to deduct the bribes from their federal income taxes. Specifically, Singer allegedly instructed clients to make payments to the KWF in return for facilitating their children’s admission to a chosen university. Singer used a portion of that money to bribe university athletic coaches to designate the children as student athletes. Thereafter, Masera or another KWF employee mailed letters from the KWF to the clients expressing thanks for their purported charitable contributions. The letter stated: “Your generosity will allow us to move forward with our plans to provide educational and self-enrichment programs to disadvantaged youth,” and falsely indicated that “no good or services were exchanged” for the donations. Many clients then filed personal tax returns that falsely reported the payment to the KWF as charitable donations.

The charge of racketeering conspiracy provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater and restitution. The charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering provides for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, up to three years of supervised release, and a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the money laundering. The charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, up to three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charge of obstruction of justice provides for a sentence of no greater than 10 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000. The charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, and of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and honest services wire fraud, provide for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of 250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations in Boston, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Eric S. Rosen, Justin D. O’Connell, Leslie Wright, and Kristen A. Kearney of Lelling’s Securities and Financial Fraud Unit are prosecuting the case.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Appendix

William Rick Singer, 58, of Newport Beach, Calif., owner of the Edge College & Career Network and CEO of the Key Worldwide Foundation, was charged in an Information with racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and obstruction of justice.  He is scheduled to plead guilty in Boston before U.S. District Court Judge Rya W. Zobel on March 12, 2019, at 2:30 p.m.;

Mark Riddell, 36, of Palmetto, Fla., was charged in an Information with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud as well as conspiracy to commit money laundering;

Rudolph “Rudy” Meredith, 51, of Madison, Conn., the former head women’s soccer coach at Yale University, was charged in an Information with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and honest services wire fraud as well as honest services wire fraud;  

John Vandemoer, 41, of Stanford, Calif., the former sailing coach at Stanford University, was charged in an Information with racketeering conspiracy and is expected to plead guilty in Boston before U.S. District Court Judge Rya W. Zobel on March 12, 2019, at 3:00 p.m.;

David Sidoo, 59, of Vancouver, Canada, was charged in an indictment with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Sidoo was arrested on Friday, March 8th in San Jose, Calif., and appeared in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California yesterday. A date for his initial appearance in federal court in Boston has not yet been scheduled.  

The following defendants were charged in an indictment with racketeering conspiracy:

Igor Dvorskiy, 52, of Sherman Oaks, Calif., director of a private elementary and high school in Los Angeles and a test administrator for the College Board and ACT;

Gordon Ernst, 52, of Chevy Chase, Md., former head coach of men and women’s tennis at Georgetown University;

William Ferguson, 48, of Winston-Salem, N.C., former women’s volleyball coach at Wake Forest University;

Martin Fox, 62, of Houston, Texas, president of a private tennis academy in Houston;

Donna Heinel, 57, of Long Beach, Calif., the senior associate athletic director at the University of Southern California;

Laura Janke, 36, of North Hollywood, Calif., former assistant coach of women’s soccer at the University of Southern California;

Ali Khoroshahin, 49, of Fountain Valley, Calif., former head coach of women’s soccer at the University of Southern California;

Steven Masera, 69, of Folsom, Calif., accountant and financial officer for the Edge College & Career Network and the Key Worldwide Foundation;

Jorge Salcedo, 46, of Los Angeles, Calif., former head coach of men’s soccer at the University of California at Los Angeles;

Mikaela Sanford, 32, of Folsom, Calif., employee of the Edge College & Career Network and the Key Worldwide Foundation;

Jovan Vavic, 57, of Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., former water polo coach at the University of Southern California; and

Niki Williams, 44, of Houston, Texas, assistant teacher at a Houston high school and test administrator for the College Board and ACT.

The following defendant was charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud:

Michael Center, 54, of Austin Texas, head coach of men’s tennis at the University of Texas at Austin

The following defendants were charged in a criminal complaint with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud:

Gregory Abbott, 68, of New York, N.Y., the founder and chairman of a food and beverage packaging company;

Marcia Abbott, 59, of New York, N.Y.;

Gamal Abdelaziz, 62, of Las Vegas, Nev., the former senior executive of a resort and casino operator in Macau, China;

Diane Blake, 55, of San Francisco, Calif., an executive at a retail merchandising firm;

Todd Blake, 53, of San Francisco, Calif., an entrepreneur and investor;

Jane Buckingham, 50, of Beverly Hills, Calif., the CEO of a boutique marketing company;

Gordon Caplan, 52, of Greenwich, Conn., co-chairman of an international law firm based in New York City;

I-Hin “Joey” Chen, 64, of Newport Beach, Calif., operates a provider of warehousing and related services for the shipping industry;

Amy Colburn, 59, of Palo Alto, Calif.;

Gregory Colburn, 61, of Palo Alto, Calif.;

Robert Flaxman, 62, of Laguna Beach, Calif., founder and CEO of real estate development firm;

Mossimo Giannulli, 55, of Los Angeles, Calif., fashion designer;

Elizabeth Henriquez, 56, of Atherton, Calif.;

Manuel Henriquez, 55, of Atherton, Calif., founder, chairman and CEO of a publicly traded specialty finance company;

Douglas Hodge, 61, of Laguna Beach, Calif., former CEO of investment management company;

Felicity Huffman, 56, of Los Angeles, Calif., an actress;

Agustin Huneeus Jr., 53, of San Francisco, Calif., owner of wine vineyards;

Bruce Isackson, 61, of Hillsborough, Calif., president of a real estate development firm;

Davina Isackson, 55, of Hillsborough, Calif.;

Michelle Janavs, 48, of Newport Coast, Calif., former executive of a large food manufacturer; 

Elisabeth Kimmel, 54, of Las Vegas, Nev., owner and president of a media company;

Marjorie Klapper, 50, of Menlo Park, Calif., co-owner of jewelry business;

Lori Loughlin, 54, of Los Angeles, Calif., an actress;

Toby MacFarlane, 56, of Del Mar, Calif., former senior executive at a title insurance company;

William McGlashan Jr., 55, of Mill Valley, Calif., senior executive at a global equity firm;

Marci Palatella, 63, of Healdsburg, Calif., CEO of a liquor distribution company;

Peter Jan Sartorio, 53, of Menlo Park, Calif., packaged food entrepreneur;

Stephen Semprevivo, 53, of Los Angeles, Calif., executive at privately held provider of outsourced sales teams;

Devin Sloane, 53, of Los Angeles, Calif., founder and CEO of provider of drinking and wastewater systems;

John Wilson, 59, of Hyannis Port, Mass., founder and CEO of private equity and real estate development firm;

Homayoun Zadeh, 57, of Calabasas, Calif., an associate professor of dentistry; and

Robert Zangrillo, 52, of Miami, Fla., founder and CEO of private investment firm.

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WHgqWPiT6UT3Rb_IcDaGSLDo4BtDR1TU_95lh1S8apo
  Last Updated: 2024-04-11 13:29:16 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-MA  1:19-mj-06087
Case Name:   USA v. Abbott et al
CourtListener:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679301/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679304/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679302/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679305/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679303/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679306/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679307/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679308/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679311/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679312/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679313/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679317/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679318/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679319/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679320/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679322/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679328/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679329/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679330/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679332/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679314/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679331/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679316/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679323/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679315/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679876/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679327/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679326/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679324/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679310/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679333/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679325/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14679309/united-states-v-abbott-do-not-docket-in-this-case-docket-in-cr-cases/
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_U0qDE6D8A-003KN66WU0Hol_AT69JN2WuTFm0G-oac
  Last Updated: 2024-04-11 13:31:00 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

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