Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-cr-00780
Case Name:   USA v. LEVOFF
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – The former corporate secretary and director of corporate law at a global technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, was indicted today for orchestrating a five-year insider trading scheme, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Gene Levoff, 45, of San Carlos, California, was indicted on six counts of securities fraud and six counts of wire fraud. Levoff was initially charged by complaint in February 2019.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Between February 2011 and April 2016, Levoff – the top corporate attorney at “Company-1,” who also served as the company’s assistant secretary and corporate secretary –allegedly misappropriated material, nonpublic information about Company-1’s financial results and then executed trades involving the company’s stock. This scheme to defraud Company-1 and its shareholders allowed Levoff to realize profits of approximately $227,000 on certain trades and to avoid losses of approximately $377,000 on others.

Levoff used his position as a member and co-chairman of Company-1’s Disclosure Committee – which reviewed and discussed the company’s draft quarterly and yearly earnings materials and periodic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings before they were disclosed to the public – to obtain material, nonpublic financial information about Company-1. Levoff used this confidential information to buy and sell stock in Company-1 ahead of its quarterly earnings announcements. When Levoff discovered that Company-1 had posted strong revenue and net profit for a given financial quarter, he purchased large quantities of stock, which he later sold for a profit once the market reacted to the news. When he learned that Company-1 had posted lower-than-anticipated revenue and net profit, he sold large quantities of Company-1 stock, avoiding significant losses.

Levoff was subject to Company-1’s regular quarterly “blackout periods,” which prohibited individuals who had access to material nonpublic information from engaging in trades until a certain period after the company disclosed its financial results to the public. Levoff ignored this restriction, as well as the company’s broader Insider Trading Policy – which he was responsible for enforcing – and instead repeatedly executed trades based on material, nonpublic information without Company-1’s knowledge or authorization. On several occasions, Levoff executed trades within a blackout period after notifying other individuals subject to the restriction that they were prohibited from buying or selling Company-1 stock until the blackout period terminated.

The securities fraud counts carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine. The wire fraud counts carry a maximum penalty of 20 years and a fine of the greater of $250,000 or twice the gain derived from or loss caused by the offense.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) previously filed a civil complaint against Levoff based on the same conduct.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge ­­­­­­Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation. He also thanked the SEC, for the assistance provided by its Enforcement Division, and Company-1, which cooperated with law enforcement over the course of the investigation.

The government is represented by Senior Trial Counsel Courtney A. Howard of the Economic Crimes Unit and Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel V. Shapiro, Chief of the Economic Crimes Unit.

The charges and allegations contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

District of New Jersey sees Increase in Prosecutions of both Violent and White Collar Crime

NEWARK, N.J. – One year after U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito reorganized the structure of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, overall criminal prosecutions have increased 51 percent, including a 65 percent jump in violent crime prosecutions, a 39 percent jump in narcotics related prosecutions, and a 15 percent jump in white collar crime prosecutions.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito’s goal in restructuring the office was to focus on areas of criminal and civil enforcement that would pay the biggest dividends in protecting New Jersey’s citizens. To that end, he established three new units in the Criminal Division (the Opioids, Violent Crime, and Cyber Units), increased the number of prosecutors by approximately 25 percent, doubled the size of the office’s paralegal corps, and implemented an “eLitigation” program to improve the way the office receives and processes information. One year later, the results of these improvements have been felt across the state of New Jersey.

“Over the past year, we have focused our efforts in gun and drug cases to target the most violent offenders,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “The results have been very encouraging. Both Newark and Camden, for example, have seen significant drops in their respective crime rates, year-over-year, and both are at their lowest crime rates in 50 years. But statistics only tell part of the story. These results also have a positive impact on the lives of the people who live here.”

“The New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office’s responsiveness and flexibility in dealing with a shifting threat picture is a true model for progressive prevention,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie said. “The reorganization of critical assets has greatly increased prosecutorial efficiency, allowing New Jersey local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to more effectively combat criminal and national security challenges. This is yet another example of the outstanding partnership U.S. Attorney Carpenito and his office have continually displayed.”

“U.S. Attorney Carpenito’s new vision for his office is bringing great results,” Susan A. Gibson, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s New Jersey Division, said. “His formation of the Opioid Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Unit sends a clear message that his office will prosecute those who choose to poison our communities with these very dangerous drugs. It is very reassuring for the men and women of DEA’s New Jersey Division to know the U.S. Attorney fully supports their investigations.”

“The safety and well-being of our citizens is a vital part of our mission,” ATF Newark Field Division Acting Special Agent in Charge Christopher Taylor said. “ATF, in partnership with the United States Attorney’s Office and our other federal, state and local law enforcement partners, will continue to focus our investigative resources on arresting and prosecuting the most violent criminals who use firearms to terrorize our communities and on those individuals who supply firearms to this criminal element. Protecting our neighborhoods from violent crime is a priority for the citizens of New Jersey and ATF.”

In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2017, the U.S. Attorney’s Office charged 467 defendants by indictment or information. By contrast, in the one year since U.S. Attorney Carpenito’s reorganization, the U.S. Attorney’s Office charged 707 defendants by indictment or information, an increase of 51 percent.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office leads “Violent Crime Initiatives,” partnerships among federal, state and local law enforcement, in two major areas in New Jersey, Newark and Jersey City. (A similar model, known as “C-4,” has been active in Camden for several years.) The VCIs collect information from more than a dozen law enforcement agencies, identify and prioritize the offenders posing the highest threats to public safety, and coordinate responses to those threats. Through the VCIs, the U.S. Attorney’s Office spearheads targeted investigations into individuals and organizations responsible for significant violent activity.

In October 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced two significant takedowns of violent drug gangs. On Oct. 11, the office charged 17 members, associates, and drug suppliers of the Famous Boyz – a subset of the Brick City Brims set of the Bloods street gang – which dealt significant quantities of heroin and crack cocaine in Newark and possessed and used firearms in furtherance of the gang’s drug trafficking activities. And on Oct. 25, the office charged 27 individuals who used violence as part of a conspiracy to distribute significant quantities of heroin and other narcotics in Trenton, and whose members possessed numerous firearms in furtherance of the gang’s activities.

The program has already shown success:

• Crime is down 15 percent in Newark from 2017 to 2018.

• Shooting incidents are down 30 percent in Newark between 2017 and 2018, and down another 39 percent between comparable periods in 2018 and 2019.

• The office has taken more than 100 new cases arising from Newark since the reorganization.

• The VCI program has recently started in Jersey City, and shooting incidents are down 69 percent in Jersey City between comparable periods in 2018 and 2019.

• Violent crime was down 18 percent in Camden from 2017 to 2018.

“The remarkable progress we’ve had in Camden is built on many things,” Chief Thomson said. “Its foundation is establishing trust with the community, but also trust among local, state and federal law enforcement partners. We have that kind of trust with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, and U.S. Attorney Carpenito has worked hard to provide his Camden office with the people and resources needed to be valuable contributors to the law enforcement team we’ve assembled here.”

“One of the advantages of the reorganization of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is the targeting of resources on the mission of reducing violent crime,” Public Safety Director Anthony Ambrose said. “In 2018 the U.S. Attorney’s office handled over 120 cases that specifically helped Newark, resulting in more than 100 fewer shooting victims compared to 2017 and a 35 percent reduction in robberies.”

“Violent crime, specifically related to shootings and gun offenses, has been priority number one for the Jersey City Police Department, along with its essential partner, the Hudson County Prosecutor,” Jersey City Police Chief Michael J. Kelly said. “Now, with the ‘Violent Crime Initiative’ and the Office of U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito fully engaged, Jersey City is about to become even safer. Partnership with the U.S. Attorney’s Office is a major win for all our neighborhoods in Jersey City and bad news for those that perpetuate violence in our community.”

Along with the renewed focus on violent criminal offenders, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has continued to pursue and prosecute white collar criminals, with the number of those defendants charged by information or indictment up 15 percent in the year since the reorganization was announced. In 2019 alone, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has announced charges in several significant white collar cases, including:

• The Jan. 15, 2019, unsealing of a significant indictment charging two Ukrainian men for their roles in a large-scale, international conspiracy to hack into the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) computer systems and profit by trading on critical information they stole.

• The Feb. 13, 2019, complaint charging Gene Levoff, a former senior attorney at a global technology company, with insider trading.

• The Feb. 14, 2019, indictment charging the former President and former General Counsel of Cognizant, a Fortune 500 company, with FCPA violations for allegedly bribing officials in India.

“I could not be prouder of the way this office and our federal, state and local law enforcement partners have worked to implement these changes, or the results we have achieved so far,” U.S. Attorney Carpenito said. “It’s because we are a team, no one person or entity more important to the mission than any other, that we succeed. But challenges remain and we must remain vigilant if we hope to build on our success. As the current caretaker of this office, I’m proud to have the opportunity to continue the outstanding traditions of this place and law enforcement in New Jersey.”

NEWARK, N.J. – The former corporate secretary and director of corporate law at a global technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, was charged today with insider trading, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Gene Levoff, 45, of San Carlos, California, was charged by criminal complaint with one count of securities fraud. He is scheduled to make his initial appearance in Newark federal court on Feb. 20, 2019.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Between February 2011 and April 2016, Levoff – the top corporate attorney at “Company-1,” who also served the company’s assistant secretary and corporate secretary – engaged in a scheme to defraud the company and its shareholders. He allegedly misappropriated material, nonpublic information about Company-1’s financial results and then executed trades involving the company’s stock. The scheme allowed Levoff to realize profits of approximately $227,000 and to avoid losses of approximately $377,000.

Levoff used his position as a member/co-chairman of Company-1’s Disclosure Committee – which reviewed and discussed the company’s draft quarterly and yearly earnings materials and periodic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings before they were disclosed to the public – to obtain material, nonpublic financial information. Levoff used this confidential information by buying and selling stock in Company-1 ahead of its quarterly earnings announcements, which were issued to the public via press releases. When Levoff discovered that Company-1 had posted strong revenue and net profit for a given financial quarter, he purchased large quantities of stock, which he later sold for a profit once the market reacted to the news. When Levoff learned that Company-1 had posted lower-than-anticipated revenue and net profit, he sold large quantities of Company-1 stock, avoiding significant losses.

Levoff was subject to Company-1’s regular quarterly “blackout periods,” which prohibited individuals who had access to material nonpublic information from engaging in trades until a certain period after the company disclosed its financial results to the public. Levoff ignored this restriction, as well as the company’s broader Insider Trading Policy – which Levoff participated in revising – and instead repeatedly executed trades based on material, nonpublic information without the company’s knowledge or authorization. On several occasions, he executed trades within a blackout period after notifying other individuals subject to the restriction that they were prohibited from buying or selling Company-1 stock until the blackout period terminated.

For example, in July 2015, Levoff sold more than 77,000 shares of Company-1 stock in multiple accounts he controlled after he received Company-1’s draft earnings materials and draft SEC filing for the third quarter of financial year 2015 (Q3 2015) and after he participated in a Disclosure Committee meeting. By selling off his shares, Levoff avoided a loss of approximately $345,000 when Company-1 later publicly disclosed revenue and profit below what many analysts had predicted.

Levoff’s trades on other occasions resulted in profits of approximately $227,000; he also avoided additional losses of approximately $32,000.

The securities fraud count carries a potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also filed a civil complaint against Levoff today based on the same conduct.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation. He also thanked the SEC for the assistance provided by its Enforcement Division and Company-1, which cooperated with law enforcement over the course of the investigation.

The government is represented by Senior Trial Counsel Jamari Buxton and Chief Daniel Shapiro of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Economic Crimes Unit.

The charge and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Defense counsel: Kevin H. Marino Esq., Chatham, New Jersey

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a5-9553XeyD7zZA580wdf2RUFOXEdXr2J-xtm0mxBjc/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2021-05-03 18:17:33 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-NJ  2:19-mj-03507
Case Name:   USA v. LEVOFF
  Press Releases:
NEWARK, N.J. – The former corporate secretary and director of corporate law at a global technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, was charged today with insider trading, U.S. Attorney Craig Carpenito announced.

Gene Levoff, 45, of San Carlos, California, was charged by criminal complaint with one count of securities fraud. He is scheduled to make his initial appearance in Newark federal court on Feb. 20, 2019.

According to documents filed in this case and statements made in court:

Between February 2011 and April 2016, Levoff – the top corporate attorney at “Company-1,” who also served the company’s assistant secretary and corporate secretary – engaged in a scheme to defraud the company and its shareholders. He allegedly misappropriated material, nonpublic information about Company-1’s financial results and then executed trades involving the company’s stock. The scheme allowed Levoff to realize profits of approximately $227,000 and to avoid losses of approximately $377,000.

Levoff used his position as a member/co-chairman of Company-1’s Disclosure Committee – which reviewed and discussed the company’s draft quarterly and yearly earnings materials and periodic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings before they were disclosed to the public – to obtain material, nonpublic financial information. Levoff used this confidential information by buying and selling stock in Company-1 ahead of its quarterly earnings announcements, which were issued to the public via press releases. When Levoff discovered that Company-1 had posted strong revenue and net profit for a given financial quarter, he purchased large quantities of stock, which he later sold for a profit once the market reacted to the news. When Levoff learned that Company-1 had posted lower-than-anticipated revenue and net profit, he sold large quantities of Company-1 stock, avoiding significant losses.

Levoff was subject to Company-1’s regular quarterly “blackout periods,” which prohibited individuals who had access to material nonpublic information from engaging in trades until a certain period after the company disclosed its financial results to the public. Levoff ignored this restriction, as well as the company’s broader Insider Trading Policy – which Levoff participated in revising – and instead repeatedly executed trades based on material, nonpublic information without the company’s knowledge or authorization. On several occasions, he executed trades within a blackout period after notifying other individuals subject to the restriction that they were prohibited from buying or selling Company-1 stock until the blackout period terminated.

For example, in July 2015, Levoff sold more than 77,000 shares of Company-1 stock in multiple accounts he controlled after he received Company-1’s draft earnings materials and draft SEC filing for the third quarter of financial year 2015 (Q3 2015) and after he participated in a Disclosure Committee meeting. By selling off his shares, Levoff avoided a loss of approximately $345,000 when Company-1 later publicly disclosed revenue and profit below what many analysts had predicted.

Levoff’s trades on other occasions resulted in profits of approximately $227,000; he also avoided additional losses of approximately $32,000.

The securities fraud count carries a potential penalty of 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also filed a civil complaint against Levoff today based on the same conduct.

U.S. Attorney Carpenito credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Gregory W. Ehrie in Newark, with the investigation. He also thanked the SEC for the assistance provided by its Enforcement Division and Company-1, which cooperated with law enforcement over the course of the investigation.

The government is represented by Senior Trial Counsel Jamari Buxton and Chief Daniel Shapiro of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Economic Crimes Unit.

The charge and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Defense counsel: Kevin H. Marino Esq., Chatham, New Jersey

Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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