Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-RI  1:19-cr-00054
Case Name:   USA v. Brady
  Press Releases:
PROVIDENCE – An East Greenwich attorney and businesswoman who duped family members, friends, and business associates as she operated a $10.3 million Ponzi scheme to help finance an extravagant lifestyle, including a $1 million home, numerous expensive trips abroad and multiple trips to the Super Bowl, and luxury items such as her collection of Louis Vuitton shoes, was sentenced in U.S. District Court in Providence today to 8 years in federal prison and ordered to pay back her victims a total of $4.78 million.

Monique N. Brady, 45, whose company, MNB, specialized in preserving the condition of foreclosed homes for resale, previously admitted to the court that among those she defrauded were close friends in her community, a close friend from childhood and another from law school, a childcare provider for her children, an elderly Alzheimer’s patient, her step-brother, and three firefighters in the same city where her now ex-husband is employed as a firefighter.

As part of the scheme, Brady told investors that her company had secured contracts to perform large scale rehabilitation projects on foreclosed properties in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. She represented to a total of thirty-one investors that payments ranging from approximately $20,000 to $80,000 were needed to pay subcontractors to perform the work. In exchange for their investment, they were promised a return of fifty percent of the profit realized on the project they invested in. Many investors realized little or no return on their investment. Some investors invested in multiple projects.

In reality, MNB was hired by banks to perform menial tasks such as mowing grass, changing locks, winterizing properties, boiler or electrical inspections, and snow removal. The majority of projects secured by MNB were for less than $1,000. Many were for as little as $25 to a few hundred dollars.

To make potential investors believe she had secured contracts for large scale rehabilitation projects, Brady provided fraudulent emails purporting to be from a national property rehabilitation company claiming Brady had been approved to rehabilitate a property. Brady included in the emails fraudulent itemizations of work to be performed. Brady also included, without permission, the identity of an actual employee of the national property rehabilitation company in an attempt to make the emails appear authentic.

By the time the scheme ended after its discovery in the summer of 2018, twenty-three individuals had lost approximately $4.8 million to Brady. An investigation by Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation revealed that of the 171 properties for which Brady solicited and received funds from investors, 98 were for properties her company was never hired to preserve, on which no work was performed.

“Monique Brady took advantage of the trust many, many people put in her, with total disregard for the path of personal pain and financial ruin she left behind. Her conduct was reprehensible and heartbreaking,” said United States Attorney Aaron L. Weisman.

 “I commend the hard work of investigators from IRS Criminal Investigation and FBI who put a stop to Monique Brady and her schemes, and the prosecution team of attorneys from our office and from the Department of Justice’s tax division that held her accountable. I hope the significant sentence imposed today by Chief Judge McConnell will bring some measure of justice to the many victims of Monique Brady.”

“Monique Brady operated a multi-year scheme in which her victims included some of her closest friends, a relative, and many others with whom she had community ties.  Equally disturbing to the scheme is Brady’s attempt to cover her misdeeds by asking those same victims to delete and destroy the very evidence that would eventually lead to her prosecution.” said Special Agent in Charge Kristina O’Connell.  “Though Brady’s victims have suffered both financial and emotional losses, I hope that today’s sentencing leaves them comforted by the fact that justice has been served.” 

“The nearly two dozen people Monique Brady defrauded of millions included family, first responders, neighbors, childhood pals, and elders in the grips of dementia – people who trusted her to invest their life savings, only to be left with empty bank accounts and grief,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division. “We at the FBI hope the victims find some measure of comfort in today’s sentence. “

Brady also admitted to attempting to obstruct an Internal Revenue Service criminal investigation when, after being told by IRS criminal investigators she was under investigation, she asked investors to delete or destroy all email correspondence, texts, and documents relating to their investments in MNB rehabilitation projects.

According to court documents, after Brady became aware of the investigation, she and her paramour, a Rhode Island attorney, secured a meeting with the Rhode Island Department of the Attorney General and the Rhode Island State Police, requesting they investigate the victims of this case for usury.

As the case proceeded toward federal indictment, Brady purchased a one way ticket to Vietnam. Once the FBI discovered Ms. Brady’s intention to leave the country, she moved her flight to an earlier departure date. Ms. Brady was arrested one day before her scheduled flight.

Ms. Brady pleaded guilty on July 11, 2019, to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and obstructing an IRS investigation.

At sentencing today, U.S. District Court Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., sentenced Brady to 96 months imprisonment, 3 years’ supervised release, and ordered her to pay restitution to the victims totaling approximately $4.8 million.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lee Vilker of the District of Rhode Island and Trial Attorney Christopher O’Donnell of the Tax Division.  

###

PROVIDENCE – Former East Greenwich, R.I. businesswoman Monique N. Brady, 44, whose company, MNB, specialized in preserving the condition of foreclosed homes for resale, today admitted to utilizing her business and business contacts, often times family members, friends, and business associates, to operate a $10.3 million dollar Ponzi scheme. 

Brady admitted to the Court that she fraudulently represented to potential investors that her company had secured contracts to perform large scale rehabilitation projects on foreclosed properties in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. She represented to investors that payments ranging from approximately $20,000 to $80,000 were needed to pay subcontractors to perform the work.

In reality, MNB was hired by banks to perform menial tasks such as mowing grass, changing locks, winterizing properties, boiler or electrical inspections, and snow removal. The majority of projects secured by MNB were for less than $1,000. Many were for as little as $25 dollars to a few hundred dollars.

Brady often solicited and received multiple investments for the same property. To make potential investors believe she had secured contracts for large scale rehabilitation projects, Brady provided fraudulent emails purporting to be from a national property rehabilitation company claiming Brady had been approved to rehabilitate a property. Brady included in the emails fraudulent itemizations of work to be performed. Brady also included, without permission, the identity of an actual employee of the national property rehabilitation company in an attempt to make the emails appear authentic.

Records indicate that of the 171 properties for which Brady solicited and received funds from investors for rehabilitation projects, 98 were for properties her company was never hired to preserve, on which absolutely no work was performed.

In return for their investment, thirty-one investors were promised a return of fifty percent of the profit realized on the project they invested in. Many investors realized little or no return on their investment. By the time the scheme ended after its discovery in the summer of 2018, twenty-two individuals had lost approximately $4.78M to Brady.

Brady admitted that among those defrauded were close friends in the East Greenwich community, a close friend from childhood, a close friend from law school, her step-brother, and an older woman who was essentially a nanny to her children. Other victims included three Warwick firefighters and an elderly man with Alzheimer’s disease.

Brady also admitted to attempting to obstruct an Internal Revenue Service criminal investigation when, after being told by IRS investigators she was under investigation, she asked investors to delete or destroy all email correspondence, texts, and documents relating to their investments in MNB rehabilitation projects.

Appearing today before U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., Monique N. Brady pleaded guilty to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and obstructing an IRS investigation, announced United States Attorney Aaron L. Weisman for the District of Rhode Island, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, Special Agent in Charge of Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Kristina O'Connell, and Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

Brady, who remains detained in federal custody, is scheduled to be sentenced on October 4, 2019. Wire fraud is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 20 years in prison, up to 5 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross profit/loss. Obstructing an IRS investigation is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 3 years in prison, 1 year supervised release, and a fine of $5,000. Aggravated identity theft is punishable by statutory penalties of a 2-year mandatory sentence consecutive to any other sentence imposed in this matter and 1 year of supervised release.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lee Vilker of the District of Rhode Island and Trial Attorney Christopher O’Donnell of the Tax Division.  

The matter was investigated by agents from IRS-Criminal Investigation and the FBI.

###

PROVIDENCE – A federal grand jury returned a 14-count indictment today charging an East Greenwich, Rhode Island business woman, whose business specializes in preserving foreclosed homes for resale, with nine counts of wire fraud, two counts aggravated identity theft, and one count each of money laundering, structuring, and obstructing an Internal Revenue Service investigation, announced United States Attorney Aaron L. Weisman for the District of Rhode Island, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, Special Agent in Charge of Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Kristina O'Connell, and Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

According to the indictment and court documents, Monique N. Brady, owner and operator of MNB LLC, operated a scheme whereby she raised and pocketed millions of dollars from investors, including close friends, a family member, and business associates, by misrepresenting to them that she needed to raise tens of thousands of dollars for various repair projects. In return for their investment, investors were promised a return of fifty percent of the profit.

It is alleged that Brady fraudulently represented to potential investors that MNB had secured contracts to perform large scale rehabilitation projects on foreclosed properties in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, and that payments ranging from approximately $20,000 to $80,000 were needed to pay subcontractors to perform the work. Brady often solicited and received multiple investments for the same property. To make potential investors believe she had secured contracts for large scale rehabilitation projects, Brady forwarded to her investors fraudulent emails purporting to be from a national property rehabilitation company claiming Brady had been approved to rehabilitate a property. Brady included in the emails fraudulent itemizations of work to be performed. Brady also included, without permission, the identity of an actual employee of the national property rehabilitation company in an attempt to make the emails appear authentic.

For the majority of properties for which Brady received investments from third parties, allegedly no work whatsoever was performed by MNB.  On some properties, MNB performed low-dollar tasks and was paid less than $1,000, at times as little as $25.

From January 2014 to July 2018, Brady received approximately $10.2 million dollars in investments from about 32 individuals and corporations to whom she fraudulently represented that large-scale rehabilitation projects had been awarded to MNB.  These investors have sustained a loss of approximately $4.78 million. Some of the investor funds allegedly were spent by Brady on personal expenditures, to include numerous vacations, personal mortgage payments and gambling-related expenses. When individual investors demanded from Brady a return on their investment she would, at times, use other investors funds. In this way, Brady allegedly operated a “Ponzi scheme.”  

The indictment further alleges Brady attempted to obstruct an IRS criminal investigation when, after being told by IRS investigators she was under investigation, she asked investors to delete or destroy all email correspondence, texts, and documents relating to their investments in MNB rehabilitation projects.

An indictment is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

Each wire fraud charge carries statutory penalties of up to 20 years in prison, up to 5 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross profit/loss. Aggravated identity theft is punishable by statutory penalties of a 2-year mandatory sentence consecutive to any other sentence imposed and 1 year of supervised release. Money laundering is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000. Structuring is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000. Obstructing an IRS investigation is punishable by statutory penalties of up to 3 years in prison, 1 year supervised release, and a fine of $5,000.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Lee Vilker of the District of Rhode Island and Trial Attorney Christopher O’Donnell of the Tax Division.  

The matter was investigated by agents from IRS-Criminal Investigation and the FBI.

###

PROVIDENCE – An East Greenwich, R.I. woman whose business specialized in preserving the current condition of foreclosed homes for resale has been charged in U.S. District Court in Providence.  The defendant allegedly operated a scheme whereby she raised and pocketed millions of dollars from investors, often times family members, friends, and business associates, by misrepresenting to them that she needed to raise tens of thousands of dollars for various repair projects. In return for their investment, investors were promised a return of fifty percent of the profit.

According to Court documents, it is alleged that Monique N. Brady, 44, misrepresented projects and solicited multiple bids for significantly more money than an individual project required. Brady performed relatively menial tasks such as grass mowing, snow removal, boiler service, etc., for as little as $20, but represented the bids to investors as full-fledged rehabilitation projects costing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. An investigation determined that Brady often solicited multiple bids, primarily by email, for many of the projects.

It is alleged that Brady, owner and operator of MNB LLC, often convinced investors to invest substantial amounts of money claiming she had been awarded Freddie Mac rehabilitation projects, when in fact the projects were associated with real estate entities other than Freddie Mac. The evidence suggests Brady used the Freddie Mac name to provide more credibility to her fraudulent solicitations. 

A review of bank and other financial records revealed that Brady allegedly received approximately $10,076,291 in investments from thirty-two individuals based on numerous false and fraudulent representations. Many of these investors had close and personal relationships with Brady, including close friends, her step-brother and the former nanny for her children. Numerous investors suffered substantial harm as a result Brady’s fraudulent conduct, including an elderly woman who lost nearly all of her life savings and another elderly man with Alzheimer’s disease who lost his life savings to Brady.

 As part of the scheme, Brady often paid back some of the money she received from one investor with monies received from another. By the time the scheme ended after its discovery in the summer of 2018, twenty-three individuals had lost approximately $4,495,237 to Brady.

Monique Brady appeared today before U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond on a Criminal Complaint charging her with wire fraud, announced U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island Aaron L. Weisman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, Special Agent in Charge of Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Kristina O'Connell, and Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

 The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lee H. Vilker and Tax Division Trial Attorney Christopher P. O’Donnell.           

A Criminal Complaint is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

###

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ammCvqzdR_TwJ6PIqT6mWaNJHt5XkDc37WzrviXX3V4
  Last Updated: 2024-04-12 02:07:39 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   D-RI  1:19-mj-00025
Case Name:   USA v. Brady
  Press Releases:
PROVIDENCE – An East Greenwich, R.I. woman whose business specialized in preserving the current condition of foreclosed homes for resale has been charged in U.S. District Court in Providence.  The defendant allegedly operated a scheme whereby she raised and pocketed millions of dollars from investors, often times family members, friends, and business associates, by misrepresenting to them that she needed to raise tens of thousands of dollars for various repair projects. In return for their investment, investors were promised a return of fifty percent of the profit.

According to Court documents, it is alleged that Monique N. Brady, 44, misrepresented projects and solicited multiple bids for significantly more money than an individual project required. Brady performed relatively menial tasks such as grass mowing, snow removal, boiler service, etc., for as little as $20, but represented the bids to investors as full-fledged rehabilitation projects costing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. An investigation determined that Brady often solicited multiple bids, primarily by email, for many of the projects.

It is alleged that Brady, owner and operator of MNB LLC, often convinced investors to invest substantial amounts of money claiming she had been awarded Freddie Mac rehabilitation projects, when in fact the projects were associated with real estate entities other than Freddie Mac. The evidence suggests Brady used the Freddie Mac name to provide more credibility to her fraudulent solicitations. 

A review of bank and other financial records revealed that Brady allegedly received approximately $10,076,291 in investments from thirty-two individuals based on numerous false and fraudulent representations. Many of these investors had close and personal relationships with Brady, including close friends, her step-brother and the former nanny for her children. Numerous investors suffered substantial harm as a result Brady’s fraudulent conduct, including an elderly woman who lost nearly all of her life savings and another elderly man with Alzheimer’s disease who lost his life savings to Brady.

 As part of the scheme, Brady often paid back some of the money she received from one investor with monies received from another. By the time the scheme ended after its discovery in the summer of 2018, twenty-three individuals had lost approximately $4,495,237 to Brady.

Monique Brady appeared today before U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond on a Criminal Complaint charging her with wire fraud, announced U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island Aaron L. Weisman, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division, Special Agent in Charge of Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Kristina O'Connell, and Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division Joseph R. Bonavolonta.

 The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Lee H. Vilker and Tax Division Trial Attorney Christopher P. O’Donnell.           

A Criminal Complaint is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

###

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18BrhrzE52p6Qg2N-Juxiy3OfZ7jIAaxWWBbCJ0C9ktI
  Last Updated: 2024-04-12 02:07:09 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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