Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZGFyL3ByL3RocmVlLWZvcm1lci1hcmthbnNhcy1qdXZlbmlsZS1kZXRlbnRpb24tb2ZmaWNlcnMtaW5kaWN0ZWQtY29uc3BpcmFjeS1hc3NhdWx0LWp1dmVuaWxl
  Press Releases:
LITTLE ROCK—Patrick C. Harris, Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Acting Assistant Attorney General Tom Wheeler of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, and Diane Upchurch, Special Agent in Charge of the Little Rock Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), announced today that three former White River Juvenile Detention Center officers, Will Ray, 26, Thomas Farris, 47, and Jason Benton, 42, have been indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in a conspiracy to assault juvenile inmates. 

The White River Juvenile Detention Center is located in Batesville, Arkansas.  The seven-count Indictment charges that Ray, Farris, and Benton conspired to and did assault juvenile detainees.  The indictment charges that, in some instances the defendants used pepper spray on the juveniles and then, rather than decontaminating them, shut them in their cells to “let them cook.”

“As I have stated before, there is no excuse for correction officers to violate the law,” Acting U.S. Attorney Patrick C. Harris said.  “Correction officers who violate the civil rights of others can expect to, and will be, prosecuted.”

“We at the FBI continue to be appalled at what occurred to these minors,” stated Special Agent in Charge Diane Upchurch with the Little Rock FBI Field Office.  “Along with our partners at the Justice Department, we are steadfast in our commitment to investigate and punish those responsible for these reprehensible actions.”

In addition to the conspiracy, Ray is charged in Count Two with participating in the November 6, 2013, assault of a fourteen-year-old boy who had been lying asleep on his bunk.  According to the indictment, Ray grabbed the boy from his bunk and held him so that another officer could spray the boy in the face with pepper spray.

Farris, in addition to the conspiracy, is charged in Count Three with assaulting a seventeen-year-old juvenile on November 21, 2013, by pepper spraying him in the face.

Counts Four through Seven of the Indictment charge Benton with two assaults and with falsifying incident reports related to those assaults.  According to the Indictment, on June 6, 2012, Benton assaulted a sixteen-year-old juvenile by grabbing, shoving, and choking him.  The indictment also charges that, on May 19, 2013, Benton assaulted a fifteen-year-old juvenile by pepper spraying him in the face.  According to the indictment, none of the juveniles posed a physical threat to anyone nor physically resisted in any way at the times they were assaulted by the officers.   

Two former White River Juvenile Detention Center supervisors, Captain Peggy Kendrick, 43, and Lieutenant Dennis Fuller, 40, pleaded guilty on April 26, 2016, in federal court before U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr. to conspiring to assault juvenile inmates.  Kendrick also pleaded guilty to assaulting a sixteen-year-old girl using pepper spray and to obstructing justice by falsifying an incident report about that assault.  The court will set a sentencing hearing date for Kendrick and Fuller after Presentence Investigation Reports are completed. 

The maximum potential penalty for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) is up to ten years imprisonment, up to three years of supervised release, and up to a $250,000 fine.  The maximum potential penalty for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) is up to ten years imprisonment, up to three years of supervised release, and up to a $250,000 fine.  The maximum potential penalty for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1519 (Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations) is up to twenty years imprisonment, up to three years of supervised release, and up to a $250,000 fine.  Accordingly, Kendrick faces a statutory maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and Fuller faces a statutory maximum sentence of ten years in prison. 

This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Little Rock Field Division and the investigation is ongoing. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Peters of the Eastern District of Arkansas and Trial Attorney Samantha Trepel of the Civil Rights Division.

An indictment contains only allegations.  The defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   ED-AR  4:20-cr-00196
Case Name:   USA v. Gilmore et al
  Press Releases:
LITTLE ROCK— A man and woman from Colorado have been charged with possession of a stolen postal key and theft of mail, some of which contained a tax return check and a federal stimulus check intended for financial relief during the Covid-19 pandemic. David Alan Gilmore, 31, and Kathleen Lucille Johnson, 40, appeared for arraignment in federal court today before United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney.

A complaint filed late Thursday alleges that on June 17, 2020, the Arkansas Highway Police in Conway initiated a traffic stop on a car that was displaying a stolen Colorado license plate. During the traffic stop, with assistance from Conway Police, officers located several bags full of mail, none of which was addressed to either Gilmore or Johnson. That mail contained six personal checks, one tax refund check, and one stimulus check.

In addition to the stolen mail, officers found 13 credit and debit cards in the vehicle, none of which were in the name of either Gilmore or Johnson. Officers also found a United States Postal Service key, which is used by postal carriers to open collection boxes, apartment delivery boxes, and neighborhood delivery collection box units.

The penalty for possessing a stolen postal key is not more than 10 years imprisonment, and the penalty for theft of mail is not more than 5 years imprisonment. Both crimes carry a fine of up to $250,000 and not more than three years of supervised release. The investigation is being conducted by the United States Postal Inspection Service.

An indictment only contains allegations. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

# # #

This news release, as well as additional information about the office of the

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, is available online at

https://www.justice.gov/edar

 

Twitter:

@EDARNEWS

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AjGq94EC3OCYjixUc-SIQfwA6vMBZcYvkfOM88fHrE8
  Last Updated: 2024-11-02 19:02:52 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:   ED-AR  4:20-mj-00134
Case Name:   USA v. Gilmore et al
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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZGFyL3ByL2pvbmVzYm9yby13b21hbi1zZW50ZW5jZWQtMjAtbW9udGhzLXByaXNvbg
  Press Releases:
     LITTLE ROCK—A Jonesboro woman was sentenced to prison for misusing more than $143,000 in disability payments intended for her injured veteran husband. Brandi Goldman, 49, was sentenced to 20 months in federal prison today by United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr.

     In 2013, Goldman was married to a United States Army Reservist who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a service-connected accident. As a result of this injury, her husband had many serious physical challenges, and Goldman was appointed as his guardian. Her husband began receiving disability payments, and Goldman signed a fiduciary agreement with Veterans Affairs (VA) detailing the terms of her management of his finances.

     In part, the agreement stated that funds were to be used for the beneficiary and that Goldman was not permitted to borrow, loan, or gift money belonging to the beneficiary. When Goldman officially took over her husband’s accounts in April 2015, through November 2017 after her activity was reported to authorities, she received $258,613.54 in VA disability payments and $36,000 in Social Security payments. During that timeframe, she withdrew $199,649.30 in cash and accrued about $900 in ATM and overdraft fees.

     Goldman admitted to spending much of the cash to fund her methamphetamine habit, spending $150 on methamphetamine two to three times per week. She also admitted that five other people moved into the residence with her and her husband, none of whom paid rent or contributed to expenses, some of whom she regularly gave cash. Goldman also admitted paying $68,000 in cash for another home, furnishings for the home, a vehicle, and a motor home. She told investigators she purchased vehicles for several people and gave money to her daughters as well as her husband’s parents.

     “To steal from a veteran who is incapacitated is an egregious crime. However, that this crime was committed by a fiduciary is particularly pathetic,” said Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey Breen of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General’s South Central Field Office.  “Today’s sentence should send a clear message that the VA OIG will vigorously investigate those who would exploit our nation’s most vulnerable veterans.”    

     A grand jury indicted Goldman in July 2020 with one count of misappropriation by a fiduciary and one count of theft of government funds. In June 2022, she pleaded guilty to misappropriation by a fiduciary in exchange for the other count being dismissed. In addition to prison, Judge Moody sentenced Golden to 3 years of supervised release and ordered her to pay $143,000 in restitution.

     The case was investigated by the Veterans Affairs – Office of the Inspector General and the Social Security Administration – Office of the Inspector General. Assistant United States Attorney Liza Brown prosecuted the case for the United States.

# # #

This news release, as well as additional information about the office of the

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, is available online at

https://www.justice.gov/edar

Twitter:

@EDARNEWS

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZGFyL3ByL2ZpZnRoLWRlZmVuZGFudC1wbGVhZHMtZ3VpbHR5LTExNS1taWxsaW9uLWZyYXVkLWNhc2U
  Press Releases:
      LITTLE ROCK—An England, Arkansas woman has pleaded guilty to her involvement in a scheme to defraud the U.S. Department of Agriculture out of more than $11.5 million that was intended to benefit farmers who had been discriminated against. Niki Charles, 49, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud today before Chief United States District Judge D. Price Marshall.

      Charles admitted in court today that she and others solicited people to file false claims asserting they were discriminated against when they tried to get assistance from USDA for their farming operations. Charles said she verified statements from corroborating witnesses who submitted affidavits to support the claims, but none of those witnesses actually appeared before Charles. Those actions resulted in $4.5 million in loss, an amount Charles agreed to repay.

      Four other defendants, all of whom are sisters, have pleaded guilty in this case. Lynda Charles, 72, of Hot Springs; Rosie Bryant, 74, of Colleyville, Texas; Delois Bryant, 75, of North Little Rock; and Brenda Sherpell, 72, of Gainesville, Texas, each pleaded guilty on July 6, 2022, to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. A sixth defendant, Everett Martindale, worked as an attorney and acted as the legal representative for most of the claimants that the five women recruited. Martindale is set for trial on August 30, 2022.

      The sisters also admitted that they hired a tax preparer to falsify tax returns, resulting in failure to report over $4.6 million to the Internal Revenue Service. That tax preparer, Jerry Green, pleaded guilty in January 2021. Judge Marshall will sentence those who pleaded guilty at a later date.

      As documented in plea agreements, the defendants submitted claims under two programs: the Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (BFDL) settlement and the Hispanic and Women Farmers and Ranchers (HWFR) claim program. The BFDL settlement resulted from a class action lawsuit filed in 1997 in which a group of black farmers claimed they had been discriminated against when they applied for farm credit, credit servicing, or farm benefits from USDA. Similarly, the HWFR claim program was created after groups of Hispanic and women farmers filed separate lawsuits against USDA, also alleging discrimination in their farm benefit programs.

      Both BFDL and HWFR resulted in a claims process where farmers who could show they had applied for participation in a USDA benefit program and believed they had been discriminated against could make a claim for financial relief. A successful claim resulted in an award of $62,500. Of that, $50,000 would be made payable to the claimant, and $12,500 would be transferred directly to the Internal Revenue Service as a tax withholding. Altogether, the sisters were involved with 192 claims, almost all of which were successful, resulting in a loss of over $11.5 million. The claims were false because the claimants had not suffered discrimination and, in most cases, had not even attempted to farm.

      The indictment alleges that Martindale would deposit claim checks into his law firm trust account, issue a check from that trust account to the claimant, and withhold his attorney fee. For both BFDL and HWFR, attorney fees were restricted to $1,500 per claimant. The indictment alleges that the four sisters entered an agreement with Martindale in which they would split the attorney fee. The sisters also demanded and received additional money from the claimants themselves.

      The money received from a claim was income that should have been reported on the claimant’s tax return. The sisters and their accountant, Green, admitted that Green provided tax preparation services for the claimants they had recruited and that Green falsified the tax returns in order to create a tax refund.

      Three of the sisters—Lynda Charles, Rosie Bryant, and Delois Bryant—filed false tax returns of their own and used money from the conspiracy to purchase homes and properties, a Chevrolet van, and a Mercedes G550. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the sisters are required to relinquish any claim to the vehicles and to repay the fraud money they used to purchase properties. The money is due by the time they are sentenced, which has not yet been scheduled.

      The investigation is being conducted by USDA-OIG and IRS with assistance from the United States Marshals Service and the United States Postal Inspection Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Cameron McCree, Bart Dickinson, and Amanda Fields.

# # #

This news release, as well as additional information about the office of the

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, is available online at

https://www.justice.gov/edar

Twitter:

@EDARNEWS

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