SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today affirmed the denial of relief from judgment for Sierra Pacific Industries and the other defendants held responsible for the Moonlight Fire in a settlement they entered with the United States five years ago.[1]
U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert said, “We are gratified but not surprised by today’s decision, which helps make an important point this fire season. When negligent logging operations cause massive forest fires, this Office will respond with exactly the kind of tenacious, professional advocacy shown by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Shelledy, Kelli Taylor and the rest of the team. Consistent with the best traditions of the U.S. Department of Justice, our office will continue to hold the careless to account.”
The fire started on Labor Day 2007 and burned over 46,000 acres of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests before it could be extinguished. In a complaint filed in 2010, the United States alleged that the fire started and escaped due to the neglect by Sierra Pacific and one of its contractors in operating bulldozers on a remote logging site on a “red flag” warning day. The contractor’s employees abandoned the job site to get a soda and cellphone soon after completing work, without inspecting the area to ensure they had not started a fire, as required by company policy and state law. The same contractor started two other fires the same summer working on other projects for Sierra Pacific. Sierra Pacific knew the contractor had started one of those fires yet took no action to ensure fire safety.
After litigation commenced, the contractor formally admitted that the fire started in its work area where no one but its employees was seen all day. Sierra Pacific, however, engaged in extensive litigation in an effort to avoid responsibility.
In 2012, the district court in Sacramento ruled that Sierra Pacific could present at trial some of its claims that the government engaged in fraud in attributing blame for the fire. However, in July 2012, Sierra Pacific and the other defendants averted trial by entering a settlement.
In exchange for dismissal of the United States’ complaint, the defendants agreed to pay a total of $55 million in cash. Sierra Pacific’s share of the settlement was $47 million and a conveyance of 22,500 acres of undeveloped land for incorporation into the National Forest System.
With a total value of at least $122.5 million, the settlement is the largest ever received by the United States for damages caused by a forest fire. All of the settlement payments are now complete. Land transfers totaling more than 12,000 acres have been completed with the remainder ongoing.
In the settlement agreement, Sierra Pacific and the other defendants specifically agreed to release all claims—known or unknown. Nonetheless, in October 2014, they filed a motion for relief from judgment, seeking to back out of the settlement based on allegations of fraud. Almost all accusations in the motion repeated the baseless claims made by Sierra Pacific in litigation before the settlement.
In April 2015, U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb issued a detailed 63-page order denying the motion and emphatically rejecting every allegation by Sierra Pacific’s counsel that there was fraud on the court.[2] After an exhaustive review of the law and the record, Judge Shubb concluded that the defendants “failed to identify even a single instance of fraud on the court, certainly none on the part of any attorney for the government. They repeatedly argue that fraud on the court can be found by considering the totality of the allegations. . . . Stripped of all its bluster, defendants’ motion is wholly devoid of any substance.” This is the order affirmed today by the court of appeals.
In a unanimous, 34-page opinion the Ninth Circuit ruled that “[a]fter voluntarily settling this case and asking the district court to enter judgment based on that settlement,” the defendants’ allegations of newly discovered fraud failed to meet the high showing required for relief from judgment. The court ruled that all accusations of fraud discovered before the settlement were legally insufficient — whether those accusations were true or not — because Sierra Pacific and the other defendants “voluntarily settled instead of going to trial.” The settlement agreement also precluded all accusations that the defendants claimed to have discovered after settlement, the court explained, because under the express terms of the settlement agreement, the defendants “bound themselves not to seek future relief, even for fraud on the court.” And finally, the court ruled that even if the settlement terms did not bar relief, “we conclude [those accusations] do not constitute fraud on the court.”
The court specifically rejected Sierra Pacific’s claim that an Assistant U.S. Attorney encouraged perjury by telling a federal investigator the government’s lawyers considered Sierra Pacific’s core scandal claim (that a white flag at the fire investigation scene marked the initial, “concealed” point of origin) to be “a non-issue.” The court explained that this comment was “merely an opinion about the relative importance of an element of the case; . . . not an instruction to commit perjury.”
Despite Sierra Pacific’s inflammatory accusations against the Assistant U.S. Attorneys representing the government in this case, not one of the number of federal judges to have issued rulings before and after settlement have sustained any of those accusations.
[1] The case is United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries, et al., Ninth Circuit No. 15-15799.
[2] United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries, et al., No. 2:09-02445 (E.D. Cal. April 17, 2015).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — As part the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California’s strategy to reduce violent crime by focusing on firearms prosecutions, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced sentences in the following cases involving illegal firearms offenses.
U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley sentenced Jake Phillip Jines, 23, of Stockton, to five years and 10 months in prison for dealing firearms without a license and distribution of methamphetamine. According to court documents, on Feb. 7, 2017, Jines and a co-defendant sold an undercover agent three firearms and 59.4 grams of methamphetamine. Jines does not have a license to sell firearms and none of the firearms had serial numbers. Such firearms are known as “ghost guns.” (2:17-cr-162-TLN)
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Assistant U.S. Attorney James R. Conolly is prosecuting the case.
Judge Nunley sentenced Derrick Walker, 30, of Oakland, to three years and four months in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm. According to court documents, Walker has previous convictions for selling narcotics, carjacking, and second degree robbery. On Feb. 28, 2017, Walker was found to be in possession of a .40-caliber handgun. (2:17-cr-201-TLN)
This case was the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Police Departments of Oakland and Stockton. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Hitt prosecuted the case.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — David Sun, 53, of Davis, was found guilty today on all counts related to a scheme to fraudulently obtain California Class A and Class B commercial driver licenses (CDLs) for the students of his commercial driving school, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
After a 7-day trial, a jury found Sun guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit unauthorized access of a computer and to produce identification documents without lawful authority, eight counts of production of identification documents without lawful authority, and one count of conspiracy to produce identification documents without lawful authority and to transfer identification documents produced without lawful authority.
According to court documents and evidence produced at trial, Sun operated a driving school named Commercial Driver Institute USA in the East Bay with a parking lot in Richmond. Sun primarily catered to Mandarin and Cantonese speaking students. He helped students get Class A or Class B commercial driver licenses that allowed them to drive large vehicles like tractor-trailer trucks and buses. Sun typically charged $2,500 to $6,500 per student.
Sun committed two different types of fraud: a testing conspiracy where Sun helped his California students fraudulently bypass the required written or driving tests to get commercial licenses, and a residency conspiracy where Sun recruited students from New York and helped them pose as California residents to get a California CDL. Sun would arrange for the licenses to be mailed to the students who had returned to their actual home state of New York.
Sun’s students struggled with the written tests because of their English language limitations so he helped them bypass the written testing requirements for learner’s permits. Those permits were issued from DMV’s Walnut Creek office under one employee’s login from at least November 2014 through January 2016. None of Sun’s students in the conspiracy or charged counts ever went to that Walnut Creek DMV office or passed the tests on the dates indicated in DMV’s records. Sun instructed his students to attempt the written tests, which they did at various DMV offices in the Bay Area. If they failed, Sun took their DMV receipt, which would show their unique California DMV number, and a fraudulent permit would issue from the Walnut Creek DMV after fraudulent passing scores were entered under the Walnut Creek employee login.
On occasion, Sun provided his students with a Bluetooth device to wear during the driving test, and instructed them to wear a beanie to conceal it, so that Sun could tell the student what to say and do during the test. In addition, on many occasions Sun took his students to a particular license examiner at the DMV in Santa Rosa with whom Sun had a personal relationship. Evidence at trial showed that Sun was paid extra money to guarantee they would pass the driving tests.
This case is the product of an investigation by the California Department of Motor Vehicles Office of Internal Affairs and Homeland Security Investigations. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rosanne L. Rust and Christopher S. Hales are prosecuting the case.
Sun is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on Dec. 9. Sun faces a total statutory maximum penalty of 15 years and 5 years in prison respectively for the conspiracy counts, as well as a maximum of 15 years in prison for each of the eight counts of production of identification documents without lawful authority. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The 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
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. sentenced Michael Anthony Holmes, 25, of Fairfield, today to 15 years and eight months in prison for sex trafficking a minor, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to court documents, from July 16, 2014, until September 4, 2015, Holmes recruited a 15-year-old runaway girl to engage in commercial sex acts with men for his financial benefit. Holmes transported her to multiple locations and collected the money that she earned. In July 2014, police officers found the girl and returned her to her mother. Nonetheless, Holmes continued to pressure the victim work for him, even while he was incarcerated on other charges. He wrote to her from jail and threatened that “there would be consequences” if she did not continue to make money for him.
This case was the product of an investigation by the FBI Solano County Violent Crime Task Force composed of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the California Highway Patrol, the Solano County Sheriff's Office, the Fairfield Police Department and the Vallejo Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michele Beckwith prosecuted the case.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute those who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc. Click on the “resources” tab for information about internet safety education.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Carlos T. Ortiz, 27, of Live Oak, pleaded guilty today to transportation and receipt of untagged migratory game birds and was subsequently sentenced by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson to a three-year hunting ban, three years of probation, and a $1,000 fine, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to court documents, Ortiz helped organize and participate in a 10-person goose hunt near the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge in Sutter County. During the hunt, Ortiz and others shot and killed 258 snow geese and white-fronted geese. Snow geese and white-fronted geese are migratory game birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. None of the birds were tagged as required by law.
This case was the product of an investigation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Lee prosecuted the case.
FRESNO, Calif. — Julian Burmado, 30, of Bakersfield, pleaded guilty today to possessing firearms not registered to him in the National Firearms Registry, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, Burmado manufactured rifles with various barrel lengths and offered the rifles for sale. On Oct. 3, 2018, Burmado was arrested in possession of five rifles of varying lengths. One barrel was longer than 16 inches as required by law, but three rifles had barrel lengths of 12 inches and one had a barrel length of 9 inches. None of the short barrel rifles were registered with the National Firearms Registry.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Bakersfield Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie L. Alsworth is prosecuting the case.
Burmado is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd on May 11. Burmado faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. The Department of Justice reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally based strategies to reduce violent crime. To learn more about Project Safe Neighborhoods, go to www.justice.gov/psn.
This case is also part of Project Guardian, the Department of Justice’s signature initiative to reduce gun violence and enforce federal firearms laws. Initiated by the Attorney General in the fall of 2019, Project Guardian draws upon the Department’s past successful programs to reduce gun violence; enhances coordination of federal, state, local, and tribal authorities in investigating and prosecuting gun crimes; improves information-sharing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives when a prohibited individual attempts to purchase a firearm and is denied by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), to include taking appropriate actions when a prospective purchaser is denied by the NICS for mental health reasons; and ensures that federal resources are directed at the criminals posing the greatest threat to our communities. For more information about Project Guardian, please see https://www.justice.gov/projectguardian.
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned a six-count indictment Thursday against Julian Burmado, 29, of Bakersfield, charging him with one count of unlawfully manufacturing and dealing firearms and five counts of possession of a firearm not registered in the National Firearms Registry, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, between March 19 and November 6, 2018, Burmado manufactured and sold homemade rifles to a confidential informant. Many of the rifles had barrel lengths of less than 16 inches. Burmado did not have a license to engage in the business of manufacturing and dealing in firearms, nor were any of the short-barrel rifles registered as required by federal law.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Bakersfield Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie L. Alsworth is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Burmado faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count involving possession of unregistered firearms, and a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for unlawfully manufacturing and dealing firearm. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned a one-count indictment today against Garrett Scott Wheelen, 33, of Fresno, charging him with possessing methamphetamine, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to court documents, on May 1, 2024, Wheelen arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution Mendota wearing a facemask, baseball cap, and hoodie to conceal his identity. In broad daylight, Wheelen ran to the prison fence and tossed four packages into the prison’s recreation yard. He was quickly apprehended after attempting to flee. The packages contained over 3 pounds of methamphetamine.
According to the criminal complaint, none of the inmates who were in the recreation yard retrieved the packages that were thrown.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Mendota Police Department, and the Bureau of Prisons. Assistant U.S. Attorney Cody S. Chapple is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Romero faces a statutory maximum of 20 years in prison, and a $1 million fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment today against Reynaldo Villalobos, 37, of Tulare, charging him with theft of public money and making false statements regarding right to Social Security benefits, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, Reynaldo Villalobos applied for Social Security Income benefits for his son in 2002. In 2007, his son moved out of the country and has lived in Mexico ever since, making him ineligible for Social Security Income benefits. Nonetheless, Reynaldo Villalobos, as his son’s designated representative payee, never informed the Social Security Administration about the move and continued to fraudulently represent to that agency that his son was still living in the United States in order to continue to collect the Social Security Income benefits. Between August 2007 and September 2017, Reynaldo Villalobos collected at least $80,872 in Social Security Income to which he and his son were not entitled.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Social Security Administration, Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura D. Withers is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Villalobos faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The 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
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment today against Reynaldo Villalobos, 37, of Tulare, charging him with theft of public money and making false statements regarding right to Social Security benefits, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, Reynaldo Villalobos applied for Social Security Income benefits for his son in 2002. In 2007, his son moved out of the country and has lived in Mexico ever since, making him ineligible for Social Security Income benefits. Nonetheless, Reynaldo Villalobos, as his son’s designated representative payee, never informed the Social Security Administration about the move and continued to fraudulently represent to that agency that his son was still living in the United States in order to continue to collect the Social Security Income benefits. Between August 2007 and September 2017, Reynaldo Villalobos collected at least $80,872 in Social Security Income to which he and his son were not entitled.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Social Security Administration, Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura D. Withers is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Villalobos faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
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
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — On Thursday, a federal grand jury returned a 16-count superseding indictment against Richard Alan Abrusci, 45, of South Lake Tahoe, charging him with 12 counts of wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and three counts of monetary transactions with proceeds of specified unlawful activity, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to the initial indictment in the case, from 2016 through 2021, Abrusci embezzled approximately $1.4 million from a non-profit organization that operates a chain of retail stores in California and Nevada. He did so while occupying leadership positions at the non-profit.
The superseding indictment adds charges for two additional victim non-profits. According to the superseding indictment, during the summer of 2022, Abrusci became the president of the Sacramento chapter of a national non-profit organization that pairs children with adult mentors. From October 2022 to December 2022, Abrusci embezzled nearly $50,000 from this non-profit.
In the fall of 2022, Abrusci was the chairperson of the board of directors of a non-profit organization that acts as an umbrella organization for non-profits across California that connect community members with public services. From December 2022 to January 2023, Abrusci embezzled approximately $100,000 from this non-profit.
For each of the three victim non-profits, Abrusci embezzled funds in essentially the same manner. He caused the non-profits to pay Resolution Arrangement Services (RAS) for a variety of services that RAS purportedly performed. In fact, RAS provided none of these services. Instead, RAS consisted of nothing more than a fictious business name that Abrusci registered in 2008 and a bank account he opened the same year. The payments from the non-profit organizations to RAS went into this bank account, which Abrusci controlled.
This case is the product of an investigation by the IRS Criminal Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas M. Fogg is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Abrusci faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each of the 12 counts of wire fraud. Additionally, he faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each of the three counts of monetary transactions with proceeds of specified unlawful activity. Finally, he faces a consecutive two years in prison for the count of aggravated identity theft. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — One year ago, the Department of Justice announced the revitalization and enhancement of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), which Attorney General Sessions has made the centerpiece of the Department’s violent crime reduction strategy. PSN is a nationwide initiative that brings together federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and community leaders to identify the most pressing violent crime problems in a community and develop comprehensive solutions to address them. The PSN strategy empowers each district to develop targeted, localized violent crime reduction strategies, tailoring solutions to each individual community. PSN has been proven to reduce violent crime since it was launched in 2001, and the revitalized version has been enhanced with new technologies and a redoubling of efforts to strengthen partnerships with local communities.
“Project Safe Neighborhoods is a proven program with demonstrated results,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said. “We know that the most effective strategy to reduce violent crime is based on sound policing policies that have proven effective over many years, which includes being targeted and responsive to community needs. I have empowered our United States Attorneys to focus enforcement efforts against the most violent criminals in their districts, and directed that they work together with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and community partners to develop tailored solutions to the unique violent crime problems they face. Each United States Attorney has prioritized the PSN program, and I am confident that it will continue to reduce crime, save lives, and restore safety to our communities.”
U.S. Attorney Scott stated: “Our office has a strong track record of working with our federal, state and local partners to prosecute cases aimed at reducing violent crime in our communities. We have developed a model that targets the most violent street gangs plaguing counties in our district, and we have focused on stemming the tide of illegal firearms flowing into our communities, prosecuting those who manufacture, distribute, and possess those weapons. We have deployed this strategy in the Counties of Fresno, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Kern, Solano and Tulare, and we are working to spread this model throughout the district. Project Safe Neighborhoods is alive and well in the Eastern District of California.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office works regularly with District Attorney’s Offices in Fresno, Sacramento, Kern, Stanislaus, Solano, and Tulare Counties, and partners with local law enforcement and federal agencies to target drivers of violence in those communities, including gang members and those who inject illegal firearms into the hands of criminals. This team collects and analyzes statistical and anecdotal data to refine the targeted use of pooled resources. Since the revitalization of PSN in October 2017, almost 200 defendants have been indicted federally for charges arising from PSN investigations. Sixty-four of those stemmed from investigations in Sacramento, Solano, Shasta, and San Joaquin Counties. In 2018, a total of 60 PSN defendants were sentenced to between two and 15 years in prison in the Eastern District of California.
Project Safe Neighborhoods has helped to reinvigorate existing partnerships in our district, which has a history of successful collaborations with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Those collaborations have resulted in several large-scale, long-term, multidefendant gang cases, with many arrests, guilty pleas, and sentencings occurring over the past year. Below are examples.
Operation Silent Night involved a coalition of local, state and federal law enforcement officers who conducted 69 searches at various locations throughout Northern California. Officers arrested 25 defendants on federal charges. In addition, local officials arrested more than 10 individuals on state charges. The investigation, led by the FBI, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Woodland Police Department, focused on coordinated criminal activity that centered in Yolo County but extended to other Northern California counties and prisons.
Three Stockton residents were charged with unlawful dealing in firearms in February 2018. One defendant allegedly sold 50 firearms, including machine guns, stolen firearms, firearms with obliterated serial numbers, and assault rifles manufactured from unfinished lower receivers with no serial numbers. At the time of his arrest, he possessed one handgun, eight machineguns, and five machine gun-conversion devices. Another allegedly manufactured and sold approximately 15 assault rifles. The third defendant allegedly sold eight firearms, including five assault rifles manufactured from unfinished lower receivers with no serial numbers. None of the defendants is licensed to deal in firearms.
A Grass Valley man was sentenced to five years in prison for unlawful manufacturing and dealing in firearms. He contacted a firearms vendor on the dark web seeking to sell AR-15-style “ghost” guns. Firearms without serial numbers are sometimes referred to as ghost guns. The firearms vendor was in fact an undercover agent. He manufactured and sold eight AR‑15‑style firearms without serial numbers to the undercover agent in exchange for payment in bitcoin.
A Vallejo man was sentenced to five years in prison for being a felon in possession a firearm. On July 26, 2017, officers executed a search warrant at Andrews’ home in Vallejo and at a hotel in Fairfield where. When officers arrived at the hotel parking lot, they confronted the defendant, who discarded a .40‑caliber semi-automatic handgun under a car. The gun was loaded with 12 rounds of ammunition, including seven rounds of hollow point ammunition. The defendant could not lawfully possess firearms because he has previously been convicted of felony offenses, including a January 2016 conviction in Solano County for assault with a firearm on a police officer.
Improvements to Community Safety
The FBI’s official crime data for 2017 reflects that, after two consecutive, historic increases in violent crime, in the first year of the Trump Administration the nationwide violent crime rate began to decline. The nationwide violent crime rate decreased by approximately 1 percent in 2017, while the nationwide homicide rate decreased by nearly 1.5 percent.
The preliminary information we have for 2018 gives us reason for optimism that our efforts are continuing to pay off. Public data from 60 major cities, including Sacramento and Fresno, show that violent crime was down by nearly 5 percent in those cities in the first six months of 2018 compared to the same period a year ago.
These enforcement actions and partnerships are part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. Attorney General Jeff Sessions reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally based strategies to reduce violent crime. Learn more about Project Safe Neighborhoods.
FRESNO, Calif. — Paul Joseph Espinosa, 56, of Clovis, was sentenced today to 11 years and three months in prison, to be followed by 10 years of supervised release, for attempted online coercion of a child, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to court documents, in May 2021, Espinosa noticed an Instagram profile that was controlled by an undercover agent. Espinosa initiated communications, and the undercover agent told Espinosa that she was 15 years old. Nonetheless, Espinosa continued to send her direct messages and call her using Instagram audio. Espinosa asked the purported 15-year-old for explicit pictures and asked multiple times to meet up with her to “cuddle,” to “enjoy each other’s company at least for a night,” among other things. Espinosa asked the purported 15-year-old to send him a picture for his eyes only and sent her three sexually explicit photos of females as part of that conversation.
According to court documents, on June 26, 2021, Espinosa traveled from Clovis to Fresno to meet up with the intended victim because he wanted to engage in various forms of sexual activity with her. When Espinosa arrived, he was placed under arrest. On Sept. 25, 2023, Espinosa pleaded guilty.
This case was the product of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations with assistance from the Fresno Police Department and the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brittany M. Gunter and Christina McCall prosecuted the case.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute those who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit Justice.gov/PSC.
FRESNO, Calif. — Mark Merrill Reynolds, 62, of Fresno, pleaded guilty today to unlawfully converting to his own use client funds held by his company, Ben-E-Lect, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, Reynolds was the president and sole shareholder of Ben‑E-Lect and Ben-E-Lect of Visalia. These companies operated in Fresno and Tulare Counties. Ben-E-Lect’s clients were small to medium sized businesses that purchased high‑deductible, fully insured group medical plans from independent insurance carriers, and then self‑insured beneficiaries for amounts up to the amount of the high deductible. Ben-E-Lect processed the claims using funds that its clients paid into an account known as the Ben-E-Lect Employer Elect account. Ben-E-Lect was required to hold these funds in a fiduciary capacity and to withdraw clients’ funds only for specific purposes, none of which included Ben-E-Lect’s own operational expenses or Reynold’s personal gain.
According to the plea agreement, Reynolds converted funds from the Employer Elect account to his own use by withdrawing funds from the account and then using these funds for business operational expenses of Ben-E-Lect, and to pay his own personal expenses.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Department of Insurance. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mark J. McKeon and Henry Z. Carbajal III are prosecuting the case. Reynolds is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill on August 20, 2018, at 10:45 a.m.
Reynolds faces a maximum statutory penalty of 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
FRESNO, Calif. — Alexis Sanchez, 20, of Kettleman City, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute narcotics and conspiring to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, between April 2016 and March 2018, Sanchez participated in a conspiracy to purchase and ship firearms from Tennessee to California. Sanchez assisted in sending firearms that were purchased by co-conspirators in Tennessee to California. The California-based co-conspirators then sold the firearms for a profit. In her plea agreement, Sanchez acknowledged that none of the conspirators were licensed firearms dealers. In addition, from Jan. 2017 to March 2018 Sanchez conspired with some of the same individuals to distribute narcotics.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Lenoir City Police Department in Tennessee, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee assisted in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas Newman and Stephanie Stokman are prosecuting the case.
Alexis Sanchez is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on Dec. 16. Sanchez faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison related to the distribution of narcotics, and a $1 million fine; and a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine related to the conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), the centerpiece of the Department of Justice’s violent crime reduction efforts. PSN is an evidence-based program proven to be effective at reducing violent crime. Through PSN, a broad spectrum of stakeholders work together to identify the most pressing violent crime problems in the community and develop comprehensive solutions to address them. As part of this strategy, PSN focuses enforcement efforts on the most violent offenders and partners with locally based prevention and reentry programs for lasting reductions in crime.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Sacramento attorney and filer of thousands of disability discrimination lawsuits pleaded guilty today to filing a false tax return on which he underreported the income he earned from many of those lawsuits. U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert and Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division made the announcement.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Scott Norris Johnson, 60, of Carmichael, owned and operated Disabled Access Prevents Injury Inc (DAPI), a legal services corporation. First using DAPI, and later a law firm, Johnson filed more than 4,000 lawsuits in the Eastern District of California and elsewhere under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and related California statutes, naming himself as the plaintiff.
Under the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, payments related to lawsuit settlements or awards are taxable unless paid on account of personal physical injury or physical sickness. Johnson, who worked as an attorney at the IRS earlier in his career, was required to report the taxable portion of the lawsuit settlements and awards he received. He nonetheless intentionally underreported this income on his 2012, 2013, and 2014 tax returns. By understating the lawsuit settlements and awards, Johnson and DAPI paid little to no income tax for tax years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Johnson caused a loss to the IRS of more than $250,000.
IRS-Criminal Investigation is investigating the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine T. Lydon and Assistant Chief Matthew J. Kluge of the Tax Division are prosecuting the case.
Johnson is scheduled to be sentenced on March 7. 2023, by U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez and faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison for filing a false tax return. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
FRESNO, Calif. — Elvia Sanchez, 42, of Lenoir City, Tennessee, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person, and the illegal transportation of firearms received in a state of residency, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, on Nov. 29, 2016, and June 12, 2017, Elvia Sanchez mailed firearms from Tennessee to Rafael Sanchez in California in connection with a conspiracy to traffic in firearms.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Lenoir City Police Department in Tennessee, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee assisted in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas Newman and Stephanie Stokman are prosecuting the case.
Elvia Sanchez is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill on Jan. 6, 2020. Sanchez faces a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine related to the conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person, and five years in prison and a $250,000 fine related to illegal transportation of firearms from her state of residence. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. The Department of Justice reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally based strategies to reduce violent crime. To learn more about Project Safe Neighborhoods, go to www.justice.gov/psn.
FRESNO, Calif. — Rafael Sanchez, 40, of Kettleman City; Victor Luna, 25, and Ashley Sanchez, 23, both of Lenoir City, Tennessee pleaded guilty today to conspiring to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person, and Rafael Sanchez also pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, from April 2016 until March 2018, Tennessee-based co‑conspirators Victor Luna, Ashley Sanchez, Juan Gonzalez-Mejia, and Alexis Sanchez assisted in purchasing firearms in Tennessee that were shipped to California. At the direction of Rafael Sanchez, Victor Luna and Juan Gonzalez-Mejia purchased firearms in Tennessee that the other co-conspirators packaged and mailed to Rafael Sanchez in California. Rafael Sanchez then sold the firearms to individuals in California. Rafael Sanchez also pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm after having been convicted a felony violation of assault with a deadly weapon in 1999. Rafael Sanchez admitted in his plea that, despite knowing he could not lawfully possess a firearm, he directed others to mail firearms to him in California, and on March 8, 2018, he was in possession of a ROMARM Cugir, Model Mini Draco.
On May 6, 2019, Juan Gonzalez-Mejia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person and is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 9. On Sept. 30, Alexis Sanchez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person and conspiracy to distribute narcotics. She is scheduled for sentencing on Dec. 16.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Lenoir City Police Department in Tennessee, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee assisted in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas Newman and Stephanie Stokman are prosecuting the case.
Sentencing for today’s defendants is scheduled for Jan. 6, 2020. Victor Luna, Ashley Sanchez, and Rafael Sanchez face a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine related to the conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person. Rafael Sanchez also faces maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine related to the conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person. The actual sentences, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. The Department of Justice reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally based strategies to reduce violent crime. To learn more about Project Safe Neighborhoods, go to www.justice.gov/psn.
FRESNO, Calif. — Rafael Sanchez, 40, of Kettleman City; Victor Luna, 25, and Ashley Sanchez, 23, both of Lenoir City, Tennessee pleaded guilty today to conspiring to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person, and Rafael Sanchez also pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, from April 2016 until March 2018, Tennessee-based co‑conspirators Victor Luna, Ashley Sanchez, Juan Gonzalez-Mejia, and Alexis Sanchez assisted in purchasing firearms in Tennessee that were shipped to California. At the direction of Rafael Sanchez, Victor Luna and Juan Gonzalez-Mejia purchased firearms in Tennessee that the other co-conspirators packaged and mailed to Rafael Sanchez in California. Rafael Sanchez then sold the firearms to individuals in California. Rafael Sanchez also pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm after having been convicted a felony violation of assault with a deadly weapon in 1999. Rafael Sanchez admitted in his plea that, despite knowing he could not lawfully possess a firearm, he directed others to mail firearms to him in California, and on March 8, 2018, he was in possession of a ROMARM Cugir, Model Mini Draco.
On May 6, 2019, Juan Gonzalez-Mejia pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person and is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 9. On Sept. 30, Alexis Sanchez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person and conspiracy to distribute narcotics. She is scheduled for sentencing on Dec. 16.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Lenoir City Police Department in Tennessee, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee assisted in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thomas Newman and Stephanie Stokman are prosecuting the case.
Sentencing for today’s defendants is scheduled for Jan. 6, 2020. Victor Luna, Ashley Sanchez, and Rafael Sanchez face a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine related to the conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person. Rafael Sanchez also faces maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine related to the conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person. The actual sentences, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. The Department of Justice reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally based strategies to reduce violent crime. To learn more about Project Safe Neighborhoods, go to www.justice.gov/psn.
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned an indictment today charging seven Tennessee and California residents with various firearms offenses, including conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person, illegal transportation of firearms, and being a felon in possession of firearms, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced. None of the defendants is licensed to deal or import firearms.
Rafael Sanchez Jr., 38, of Kettleman City, Califorinia, is charged with one count of conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person, three counts of illegal transportation of firearms and three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Alexis Sanchez, 19, of Kettleman City; and Tennessee residents Juan Daniel Gonzalez-Vazquez, 24; Victor Luna, 23; Ashley Sanchez, 22; and Elvia Sanchez, 40, are all charged with one count of conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person and three counts of illegal transportation of firearms
Veronica Ramirez, 38, of Lemoore, California, was charged with one count of conspiracy to traffic in firearms by an unlicensed person.
According to court documents, between April 2016 and March 2018, Rafael Sanchez conspired to have firearms purchased in Tennessee and shipped to him in California. Rafael Sanchez and Alexis Sanchez then transferred money to the Tennessee co-conspirators. With the assistance of Ramirez, Rafael Sanchez identified California-based purchasers and offered to sell them the firearms he received from Tennessee.
According to the indictment, the Tennessee co-conspirators shipped numerous firearms to California, including .45, .40 and 9 mm caliber handguns, as well as ammunition and firearms accessories, including extended magazines. In November 2017, Rafael Sanchez offered to sell to an associate in California an AR-15-style rifle with two 30-round magazines for $1,000.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Lenoir City Police Department in Tennessee, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee assisted in the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher D. Baker is prosecuting the case in the Eastern District of California.
If convicted, the defendants face a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and $250,000 fine for each of the conspiracy and firearms offenses. Rafael Sanchez faces an a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and $250,000 fine if convicted of the separate felon in possession of firearms counts. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The 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
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Scott Norris Johnson, a Sacramento attorney and filer of thousands of disability discrimination lawsuits, was sentenced today to 18 months home detention as part of a 30-month term of probation, and ordered to pay $250,000 in restitution and a $50,000 fine, for filing a false tax return on which he underreported the income he earned from many of those lawsuits, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert and Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division announced.
The sentence included the terms that while on probation Johnson may not reapply for reinstatement to the California Bar, and that during the period of home detention he may not leave home for the purpose of seeking violations of the ADA or Unruh Act in order to file suits in federal or state courts.
According to court documents and statements made in court, Johnson, 61, of Carmichael, owned and operated Disabled Access Prevents Injury Inc. (DAPI), a legal services corporation. First using DAPI, and later using a law firm, Johnson filed thousands of lawsuits in the Eastern District of California and elsewhere under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and related California statutes, naming himself as the plaintiff.
Under the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, payments related to lawsuit settlements or awards are taxable unless paid on account of personal physical injury or physical sickness. Johnson, who worked as an attorney at the IRS earlier in his career, was required to report the taxable portion of the lawsuit settlements and awards he received. He nonetheless intentionally underreported this income on his 2012, 2013, and 2014 tax returns. By understating the lawsuit settlements and awards, Johnson and DAPI paid little to no income tax for tax years 2012, 2013 and 2014. Johnson caused a loss to the IRS of more than $250,000.
This case was the product of an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine T. Lydon and Assistant Chief Matthew J. Kluge of the Tax Division prosecuted the case.
FRESNO, Calif. — Ray Brewer, 66, of Porterville, and Sheridan, Montana, pleaded guilty today to wire fraud, money laundering, and identity theft charges for running a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme where he purported to turn cow manure into green energy, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to court records, from March 2014 through December 2019, Brewer stole $8,750,000 from investors by claiming to build anaerobic digesters on dairies in Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties, as well as other counties in California and Idaho. Anaerobic digesters are large machines that use microorganisms to breakdown biodegradable material and turn it into methane. The methane can then be sold on the open market as green energy. The methane also produces Renewable Energy Credits (REC), which represent the property right to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved through green energy creation. RECs are commonly purchased by companies to meet green energy regulatory, contractual, and initiative requirements or commitments. Brewer’s investors were supposed to receive 66% of all net profits as well as tax incentives.
Brewer made various misrepresentations to his investors. Brewer took the investors on tours of dairies where he said that he was going to build the digesters and sent them forged lease agreements with the dairy owners. He also sent the investors altered agreements with banks that made it appear as though he had obtained millions of dollars in loans to build the digesters. Finally, he sent the investors forged contracts with multinational companies that made it appear as though he had secured revenue streams. None of this was true.
After Brewer received the investors’ money, he transferred the funds to multiple other bank accounts that he opened in the names of different entities, his family members, and an alias. He used false descriptions for the transfers. He did so to conceal the location, source, ownership, and control of the money before using it for personal expenditures. These expenditures included two plots of land that were 10 or more acres each, a 3,700 square foot custom home, and new Dodge Ram pickup trucks.
Brewer subsequently told his investors that the digesters were progressing when that was not the case. He did so by sending them fake construction schedules, fake invoices for project-related costs, fake power generation reports, fake RECs, and fake pictures.
In some instances, Brewer purported to refund investors all or some of their money. The refunds, however, came from newly received money from other investors who had not authorized Brewer to use their money in this way. When Brewer’s investors realized the fraud and obtained civil judgments against him, he moved to Montana and assumed a new identity. He later claimed to have been wrongfully arrested before admitting who he was.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph D. Barton, Henry Z. Carbajal III, and Alyson A. Berg are prosecuting the case.
Brewer is scheduled to be sentenced on June 26, 2023, by U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. Brewer faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for the wire fraud conviction. He also faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine a of $500,000 or twice the amount of money involved for the money laundering conviction, whichever is the greater. Finally, he faces a mandatory two years in prison, consecutive to other counts, for the aggravated identity theft conviction. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — David Sun, 65, of Davis, was sentenced today to three years and one month in prison for a scheme to fraudulently obtain California Class A and Class B commercial driver licenses (CDLs) for the students of his commercial driving school, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
“He not only knowingly and willfully abused his position of trust for personal gain, but did so at the expense of others, in this document fraud scheme,” said Tatum King, special agent in charge, San Francisco, Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI will continue working with our law enforcement partners to identify and disrupt document fraud and bring to justice those involved in these illegal schemes.”
On Sept. 13, after a seven-day trial, a jury found Sun guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit unauthorized access of a computer and to produce identification documents without lawful authority, eight counts of production of identification documents without lawful authority, and one count of conspiracy to produce identification documents without lawful authority and to transfer identification documents produced without lawful authority.
According to court documents and evidence produced at trial, Sun operated a driving school named Commercial Driver Institute USA in the East Bay with a parking lot in Richmond. Sun primarily catered to Mandarin and Cantonese speaking students. He helped students get Class A or Class B commercial driver licenses that allowed them to drive large vehicles like tractor-trailer trucks and buses. Sun typically charged $2,500 to $6,500 per student.
Sun committed two different types of fraud: a testing conspiracy where Sun helped his California students fraudulently bypass the required written and/or behind the wheel driving tests to get commercial licenses, and a residency conspiracy where Sun recruited students from New York and helped them pose as California residents to get a California CDL. Sun would arrange for the licenses to be mailed to the students who had returned to their actual home state of New York.
Sun’s students struggled with the written tests because of their English language limitations so he helped them bypass the written testing requirements for learner’s permits. Those permits were issued from DMV’s Walnut Creek office under one employee’s login from at least November 2014 through January 2016. None of Sun’s students in the conspiracy or charged counts ever went to that Walnut Creek DMV office or passed the tests on the dates indicated in DMV’s records. Sun instructed his students to attempt the written tests, which they did at various DMV offices in the Bay Area. If they failed, Sun often took their DMV receipt, which would show their unique California DMV number, and a fraudulent permit would issue from the Walnut Creek DMV after fraudulent passing scores were entered under the Walnut Creek employee login.
On occasion, Sun provided his students with a Bluetooth device to wear during the driving test, and instructed them to wear a beanie to conceal it, so that Sun could tell the student what to say and do during the test. In addition, on many occasions Sun took his students to a particular licensing registration examiner at the DMV in Santa Rosa with whom Sun had a personal relationship. Evidence at trial showed that Sun was paid extra money to guarantee his students would pass the driving tests.
This case was the product of an investigation by the California Department of Motor Vehicles Office of Internal Affairs and Homeland Security Investigations. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Rosanne L. Rust and Christopher S. Hales prosecuted the case.
PITTSBURGH – After two months of trial a federal jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania unanimously recommended today that a Pennsylvania man be sentenced to death for killing 11 congregants at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, critically wounding two others, and injuring five responding police officers in October 2018.
On June 16, after a three weeks of hearing evidence, the jury found Bowers guilty on 63 counts, including hate crimes resulting in death and obstruction of the free exercise of religion resulting in death, that were potentially punishable by a death sentence.
After hearing additional evidence, the jury found on July 13, that Robert Bowers, 50, was eligible to receive a death sentence. During the Sentence Selection phase of the trial, which lasted from July 17 through July 31, 2023, the jury then heard testimony on aggravating and mitigating factors before arriving at its unanimous recommendation of a death sentence.
“The horrific attack at the Tree of Life Synagogue on October 27, 2018, stole the lives of 11 innocent victims, shattered their families, gutted their congregation and the Pittsburgh community, and struck fear in the lives of Jewish people across the country,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Hate crimes like this one inflict irreparable pain on individual victims and their loved ones and lead entire communities to question their very belonging. All Americans deserve to live free from the fear of hate-fueled violence and the Justice Department will hold accountable those who perpetrate such acts.”
“The evidence in this trial proved that the defendant acted because of white supremacist, anti-Semitic and bigoted views that unfortunately are not original or unique to him,” said U.S. Attorney Eric Olshan for the Western District of Pennsylvania. “Our Constitution protects a person’s right to hold repugnant beliefs. But our Constitution also protects every person’s right to practice his or her faith. When people who espouse white supremacist, anti-Semitic, and bigoted views pick up weapons and use them to kill or try to kill people because of their faith, our Office and our partners in law enforcement will hold them accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Each and every time.”
“The men and women of the FBI hold the Tree of Life Synagogue victims and the Pittsburgh community in our hearts as we continue to protect communities of faith from violent acts of hate,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “The damage caused by antisemitism cannot be understated, just as the tragic loss of the eleven victims cannot be measured. Healing will be a life-long journey for the survivors, families, and communities affected by this vile attack, and the FBI will be there to support them throughout that journey.”
“The massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue imposed grievous and far-reaching harms and is a reminder about the ongoing threat that we face as a result of antisemitic violence and hatred in our country,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The victims of these senseless murders were community and religious leaders and loving family members and friends. A jury of his peers held the defendant accountable for his hateful actions and provided justice for those killed and injured. The verdict, though, cannot bring back the 11 people killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue. Nor can it heal the physical and psychological wounds of the survivors or dispel the hurt and fear of community members. We hope that this civil rights prosecution brings a measure of closure and highlights the determination of the Justice Department to protect people from antisemitic violence and other hate crimes in our country.”
“I hope today’s decision brings some comfort to those impacted by this terrible crime and to our community,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “As we all work to heal together, I want to remind the community that none of us can do this alone. I want to commend the work by my FBI personnel, the Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and our partner agencies who put in countless hours at the scene that day and every day since preparing for this trial. I want to assure everyone that the FBI will keep doing everything we can for the people who need it most in every community across the country.”
The evidence showed that on Oct. 27, 2018, Bowers drove to the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where members of the Tree of Life, Dor Hadash and New Light Jewish congregations gathered to engage in religious worship. Bowers entered the building armed with multiple firearms, including three Glock .357 handguns and a Colt AR-15 rifle. While inside the Tree of Life Synagogue, Bowers opened fire, killing and injuring members of the three congregations, as well as injuring multiple responding police officers as they attempted to rescue surviving victims.
The victims include 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life Synagogue who were killed: Joyce Fienberg, 75; Richard Gottfried, 65; Rose Mallinger, 97; Jerry Rabinowitz, 66; Cecil Rosenthal, 59; David Rosenthal, 54; Bernice Simon, 84; Sylvan Simon, 86; Daniel Stein, 71; Melvin Wax, 88; and Irving Younger, 69. In addition, the defendant critically injured two congregants. Another 12 congregants escaped physical injury. Additionally, the victims include five responding police officers who were injured while attempting to rescue surviving victims and apprehend the defendant.
The evidence showed that the defendant meticulously planned his attack based on his violently antisemitic beliefs, reflected in dozens of online posts admitted into evidence.
The court will impose the sentence on Aug. 3.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, and the Allegheny County Police conducted the investigation leading to the conviction in this case, with assistance from many other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The case was prosecuted by United States Attorney Eric G. Olshan and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Troy Rivetti, Soo C. Song, and Nicole Vasquez Schmitt of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Trial Attorney Mary J. Hahn of the Civil Rights Division; and Barry K. Disney of the Capital Case Unit of the United States Department of Justice. Special Litigation Counsel Julia Gegenheimer of the Civil Rights Division and Trial Attorney Sonia Jiminez of the Criminal Division also made significant contributions to the prosecution of this case.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley sentenced Andre Antonio Walters, 37, of Long Beach, today to six years and one month in prison and a $15,000 fine for four counts of mail fraud for his role in a significant unemployment benefit fraud scheme, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to evidence presented at trial in August 2016, Walters was a “manager” in a scheme to defraud the State of California of unemployment benefits from approximately 2008 to 2011. The scheme involved registering fictitious businesses with the state, listing “employees” as having earned wages at those fictitious businesses when in fact they had never worked there, and then filing for unemployment benefits on behalf of those “employees.” Walters recruited people to pose as these “employees,” managed their unemployment claims once filed, and split the resulting unemployment benefits checks that were mailed out of West Sacramento. According to the indictment, the scheme resulted in at least $5 million in fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits being disbursed by the state.
U.S. Attorney Talbert stated: “The funds set aside for unemployment insurance and disability insurance are intended to benefit Californians who have earned the right to receive those benefits. Fraud schemes that damage and deplete the fund undermine the benefit system and cheat those whom the funds are intended to protect. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to investigate and stop fraud schemes like this that harm California workers.”
“Andre Walters and Michael Taylor Jr., who was sentenced last week, created several fictitious employers and then used the names of approximately 500 nonexistent employees to collect more than $5 million in unemployment insurance benefits intended to provide relief to unemployed workers. We will continue to work with our state and federal law enforcement partners to preserve the integrity of all Department of Labor enforcement programs,” said Abel Salinas, Special Agent in Charge, Los Angeles Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General.
“Today’s sentencing sends a loud, clear message: we will not tolerate those who engage in unemployment benefits fraud,” said Patrick W. Henning, Director of the Employment Development Department (EDD). “We’re proud to team up with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General to stop these criminals. We all share a common commitment: to ensure unemployment benefits go to the unemployed who need the assistance — not to thieves who believe they are above the law.”
This case was the product of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General and the California Employment Development Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jared C. Dolan and Matthew M. Yelovich prosecuted the case.
Walters is the sixth defendant to be sentenced for participating in this fraud scheme. Kenneth Kim Parks, 54, of Pomona, and of Long Beach, was sentenced to five years in prison. Gregory Bart Martin, 36, of Lakewood, was sentenced to 18 months of probation, Michael Ray Taylor Sr., 52, of Fontana, was sentenced to three years in prison; and Michael Ray Taylor Jr., 32, of El Monte, was sentenced to 15 months in prison.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered orders in two cases during the last two weeks declaring California statutes unconstitutional because they discriminated against the United States in violation of the United States Constitution. The cases are United States v. California, No. 2:18-cv-721, and United States v. Kernen Construction, 2:17-cv-1424.
In United States v. California, decided yesterday, the court struck down California Senate Bill 50 (“SB 50”), enacted in October 2017 for the express purpose of “discourag[ing]” conveyances of federal land. The statute provided that any conveyance of a property interest in federal land would be void unless the State Lands Commission was given a right of first refusal over government proposals to sell federal land. After the United States filed suit last spring, California amended the statute, narrowing its application to federal lands managed by the National Forest Service, the federal Bureau of Reclamation, the federal Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Park Service; and federal lands containing national monuments, national marine sanctuaries, national conservation lands, or lands in the National Register of Historic Places. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the statute both regulated the United States and discriminated against persons with whom the United States deals, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
The order explains that SB 50 directly regulates the United States and “trespasses on the federal government’s ability to convey land to whomever it wants” by requiring it to offer a right of first refusal. In addition, the court found the statute discriminates against purchasers and grantees of federal lands, because only they must present a certificate of compliance from the Lands Commission in order to record conveyance documents, and only they are subject to monetary penalties if they fail to do so. In addition to declaring the statute unconstitutional, the court permanently enjoined California and the Lands Commission from enforcing it.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement following the district court’s ruling declaring SB 50 unconstitutional. He stated, “The court’s ruling is a firm rejection of California’s assertion that, by legislation, it could dictate how and when the federal government sells federal land. This was a stunning assertion of constitutional power by California, and it was properly and promptly dismissed by the district judge. It is unfortunate that, in the interim, California forced both the Justice Department and the court to spend valuable time and resources to dispose of its baseless position.”
In United States v. Kernen Construction, the court entered an order on October 16, 2018, ruling that California Health & Safety Code § 13009.2 is unconstitutional because it unconstitutionally discriminated against the United States in violation of the Supremacy Clause. Section 13009.2 was specifically intended to reduce damages the United States may recover for wildfires caused by the neglect of other parties. The statute imposed four different limitations on compensation for the United States but did not impose any of those limitations on recoveries by private landowners. The court found that Section 13009.2 “systemically undervalues damage to National Forest Land,” and explained that when private parties are excluded in this way from the burdens imposed by a state statue, there is no political check against abuse of the statue’s regulatory authority, and the federal government’s operations may be unfairly burdened. The court found no “sensible distinction” to justify disparate treatment of the United States as a landowner seeking damages caused by wildfires.
“Since the founding of the Republic, it has been fundamental to our constitutional system that a state may not discriminate against the United States or those with whom it deals,” said U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott for the Eastern District of California. “We have vigorously defended this principle in these cases, and we will continue to do so as necessary.”
In United States v. California, the United States is represented by Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Wood of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, with lead counsel Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Grant, Justin Heminger, Stacy Stoller and Peter McVeigh, and Civil Chief David Shelledy and Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Frueh of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California. In United States v. Kernen Construction, the United States is represented by Civil Chief Shelledy and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Colleen Kennedy and Benjamin Wolinsky.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The former CEO of a Sacramento non-profit was arrested today, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
On Nov. 16, 2023, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Richard Alan Abrusci, 45, of South Lake Tahoe, charging him with nine counts of wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and three counts of monetary transactions with proceeds of specified unlawful activity. The indictment was unsealed after the arrest.
According to court documents, in 2014, Abrusci began working at a non-profit organization that operates a chain of retail stores in California and Nevada. Abrusci became the Chief Operating Officer of the organization in 2016 and its president and CEO in 2018.
From 2016 through 2021, Abrusci fraudulently caused the non-profit organization and one of its subsidiaries to pay approximately $1.4 million to Resolution Arrangement Services (RAS). RAS consisted of nothing more than a fictitious business name that Abrusci registered in 2008 and a bank account that he opened the same year. Abrusci caused the fraudulent payments into the RAS bank account that he controlled by using various false documents, including invoices and purchase orders. In one instance, Abrusci used a forged letter purporting to be from an attorney representing the non-profit organization to convince the organization’s CFO to pay RAS $55,000 under false pretenses related to a lawsuit.
The payments to RAS were supposedly for information-technology services, helping to facilitate settlement of a lawsuit, and assisting the non-profit organization in running call centers for the State of California during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, RAS provided none of the services for which it billed the non-profit organization and its subsidiary.
This case is the product of an investigation by IRS-Criminal Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas M. Fogg is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Abrusci faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each of the nine counts of wire fraud. Additionally, he faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each of the three counts of monetary transactions with proceeds of specified unlawful activity. Finally, he faces a consecutive two years in prison for the aggravated identity theft. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
FRESNO, Calif. — Royce Newcomb, 60, of Fresno, charged in connection with schemes estimated to have defrauded investors and the government out of more than $4.2 million was arrested today in Fresno, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
The indictment, unsealed following Newcomb’s arrest, charges him with five counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering for running Ponzi, COVID-19 benefits, and other fraud schemes through his company, Strategic Innovations LLC.
According to court records, beginning in 2017, Newcomb owned and operated Strategic Innovations that purported to make smart home and business products meant to stop package theft, prevent weather damage to packages, and make it easier for delivery services and emergency responders to find homes and businesses. He created prototypes for his products, applied for and was issued patents and trademarks, and received local and national media attention that he used to secure millions of dollars from investors.
Newcomb told his investors that he had been awarded a grant by the National Science Foundation and that he would use their money to further develop and bring his products to market. He also promised them significant returns in as little as three months. But none of these representations were true. Instead, Newcomb used the investors’ money to pay for his personal expenses such as gambling, luxury vehicles, and a mansion, to pay for refunds to other investors, and to pay for new, unrelated projects without the investors’ authorization.
In the midst of Newcomb’s Ponzi scheme, he also received a fraudulent COVID-19 loan for over $70,000 from the Small Business Administration and fraudulent loans for over $190,000 from private lenders. He lied about his company having hundreds of thousands and even millions in revenues to get these loans.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph Barton and Jeffrey Spivak are prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Newcomb faces maximum statutory penalties of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each of the wire fraud counts, and 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the money laundering count. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This effort is part of a California COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Strike Force operation, one of three interagency COVID-19 fraud strike force teams established by the U.S. Department of Justice. The California Strike Force combines law enforcement and prosecutorial resources in the Eastern and Central Districts of California and focuses on large-scale, multistate pandemic relief fraud perpetrated by criminal organizations and transnational actors. The strike forces use prosecutor-led and data analyst-driven teams to identify and bring to justice those who stole pandemic relief funds.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gary Loch, 29, of Stockton, and Eugene, Oregon, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller to five years in prison for conspiring to traffic firearms without a license, possessing an unregistered automatic weapon, and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, between January and June 2016, Loch was one of several Stockton-based conspirators who sold about 47 guns to an undercover agent. Loch personally owned and sold three of these weapons, including a machinegun with a partially obliterated serial number. Several other firearms were automatic, carried extended magazines, or had obliterated serial numbers. Agents saw Loch removing several of these serial numbers himself. In total, Loch was present as 31 firearms changed hands at 10 transactions in Stockton and Las Vegas, Nevada. During several of these meetings, the undercover agent said that he could not legally purchase weapons and that he would introduce the guns to the black market. Loch and others completed the purchases nonetheless.
This case was the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Amanda Beck and Richard Bender prosecuted the case.
Loch has been in custody since October 18, 2017. Nearly all of his co-defendants have been sentenced for gun-related crimes: Jason Prom received 12 years in prison. Ronnie Dethvongsa received four years and nine months in prison. Kenny Prach received three years and six months in prison. Ariana Diaz received two and a half years in prison. Sean Chaichanhda and Hilberto Arevalos received 18 months each. Charges are still pending against co-defendant Adam Nhem, who is scheduled to appear in court on September 17, 2018. The charges are only allegations; he is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. Attorney General Jeff Sessions reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally based strategies to reduce violent crime.
FRESNO, Calif. — Monday, a federal jury in Fresno convicted two defendants for assisting in an effort to help Paulo Virgen Mendoza’s escape from California to Mexico after he allegedly killed Newman Police Corporal Ronil Singh during a traffic stop, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
Virgen Mendoza’s brother, Conrado Virgen Mendoza, 34, an illegal alien from Colima, Mexico, residing in Chowchilla; and friend, Erik Quiroz Razo, 28, an illegal alien from Michoacán, Mexico residing in Merced, were found guilty of conspiring to aid and abet Paulo Virgen Mendoza’s flight to avoid prosecution for murder. The jury acquitted other family members, Erasmo Villegas Suarez, 36, and Maria Luisa Moreno, 57, both of the Bakersfield-Lamont area. However, Villegas and Moreno have been issued notices to appear initiating deportation proceedings and Villegas faces additional federal charges relating to fraud involving identification documents. Villegas is scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 21 in connection with that case, and he is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Paulo Virgen Mendoza’s girlfriend, Ana Leydi Cervantes Sanchez, 31, an illegal alien from Michoacán, Mexico, who was residing with Paulo in Newman, was sentenced today to one year and one day in prison after previously pleading guilty to conspiring to aid and abet Paulo’s flight to avoid prosecution for murder, conspiring to harbor an illegal alien, and harboring an illegal alien. Paulo Virgen Mendoza is an illegal alien from Colima, Mexico. Virgen Mendoza’s brother, Adrian Virgen Mendoza, 26, an illegal alien from Colima, Mexico, previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to aid and abet his brother’s flight to avoid prosecution for murder and was sentenced to one year and nine months in prison. Moreno’s husband, Bernabe Madrigal Castañeda, 60, an illegal alien of Colima, Mexico, also previously entered a guilty plea to the conspiracy and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Cervantes, Adrian Virgen Mendoza, and Madrigal have been issued notices to appear initiating deportation proceedings after serving their prison terms.
According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, in the early morning hours of Dec. 26, 2018, Paulo returned to his residence in Newman after killing Newman Police Corporal Ronil Singh during a traffic stop. In the following two days, Paulo’s friends and relatives conspired together to help him escape to Mexico. Conrado, Quiroz, Cervantes, Adrian Virgen Mendoza, and Madrigal were aware from news coverage, social media, and from cellphone alerts that Paulo was wanted for murder of an officer. Nevertheless, Conrado and Quiroz helped him to conceal his truck and drove him to various locations, and Quiroz disposed of Paulo’s loaded firearm. Cervantes provided Paulo with clothes, and Madrigal provided him with food and shelter.
As part of the conspiracy, Adrian Virgen Mendoza arranged for a smuggler to take Paulo across the border, and Adrian and Madrigal purchased a new cellphone for Paulo to use to communicate with the smuggler. On Dec. 28, SWAT officers were deployed to Moreno and Madrigal’s residence after receiving information that Paulo was there. Paulo was then arrested for murder.
Throughout the manhunt, there were immediate and widespread media reports and various alerts indicating that Paulo was wanted for killing Corporal Singh, identifying Paulo as an illegal alien, and showing Paulo’s photograph and the truck that he was driving at the time of the shooting. None of the defendants notified the authorities of their contacts with Paulo when they learned that he was wanted. Ultimately, Conrado directed law enforcement officers to the dumpster where Quiroz had thrown the gun.
This case is the product of an investigation led by Homeland Security Investigations and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office with assistance from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations; Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) task force; Southern Tri-County HIDTA; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; California Highway Patrol; California Department of Justice, the Sheriffs’ Offices for Kern, Merced, and Santa Cruz Counties; and the Police Departments for Merced, Turlock, Modesto, and Santa Cruz. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen A. Escobar, Laura D. Withers, and Michael G. Tierney are prosecuting the case.
Conrado Virgen Mendoza and Erik Quiroz Razo are scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd on January 13, 2020. They face a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The actual sentences, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned a nine-count superseding indictment today against Erik Razo-Quiroz, 29, of Merced; Adrian Virgen-Mendoza, 25, of Fairfield; Conrado Virgen Mendoza, 34, of Chowchilla; Erasmo Villegas-Suarez, 36, of Buttonwillow; Ana Leydi Cervantes-Sanchez, 31, of Newman; Bernabe Madrigal-Castaneda, 59, of Lamont; and Maria Luisa Moreno, 57, of Lamont, adding six new charges relating to fraudulent identification documents to the previous charges of conspiring to harbor an alien and, as to Razo, being a felon and an alien in possession of a firearm.
U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott and Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Ryan L. Spradlin made the announcement.
According to court documents, between December 26, 2018, and December 28, 2018, the defendants conspired to harbor and conceal Paulo Virgen Mendoza as he attempted to flee from California to Mexico to avoid prosecution for the murder of Newman Police Corporal Ronil Singh. It is alleged that in the early hours of December 26, 2018, Mendoza, an alien not lawfully present in the United States, shot and killed Corporal Singh. Thereafter, the seven defendants helped Mendoza hide from law enforcement, despite knowing that he had killed a police officer. The defendants transported, hosted, and provisioned Mendoza with clothes, money, and a new cellphone; concealed the truck that Mendoza was driving when he allegedly killed Corporal Singh; and made plans and wired money to smuggle Mendoza out of California and back to Mexico. Additionally, Razo, a convicted felon, disposed of the gun that Mendoza allegedly used. All of the defendants are aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
In the superseding indictment, Mendoza’s brothers, Conrado Virgen Mendoza and Adrian Virgen Mendoza, are also charged with using a false Social Security Number and possessing a false lawful permanent resident card in connection with securing employment. Another relative, Erasmo Villegas-Suarez, is also charged with using a false Social Security Number in connection with securing employment.
This case is the product of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office with assistance from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, the Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) task force, the Southern Tri-County HIDTA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the California Highway Patrol, the Kern, Merced, and Santa Cruz Counties Sheriff’s Offices, and the Police Departments of the cities of Merced, Turlock, Modesto, and Santa Cruz. Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen A. Escobar and Laura D. Withers are prosecuting the case.
The defendants are next scheduled to appear in federal court for a status conference on February 25. If convicted of the firearms offenses, Razo faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The charges of harboring conspiracy and misuse of a social security number carry a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Possession of false immigration documents carries a maximum statutory penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned an indictment today against Erik Razo‑Quiroz, 29, of Merced; Adrian Virgen-Mendoza, 25, of Fairfield; Conrado Virgen‑Mendoza, 34, of Chowchilla; Erasmo Villegas-Suarez, 36, of Buttonwillow; Ana Leydi Cervantes-Sanchez, 31, of Newman; Bernabe Madrigal-Castaneda, 59, of Lamont; and Maria Luisa Moreno, 57, of Lamont, charging them with conspiring to harbor an alien, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott and Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent in Charge Ryan Spradlin announced. In addition, Razo‑Quiroz is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and being an alien in possession of a firearm.
U.S. Attorney Scott stated: “Law enforcement agencies that are sworn to protect the public can accomplish their mission only when they have the active cooperation and support of the community they serve. Officers who serve our community put their lives on the line every day to protect us, and they deserve that cooperation and support. When individuals act to thwart law enforcement’s efforts, they undermine the safety of those officers and the public as a whole. Today’s indictment is a significant step toward holding accountable those who chose to harbor and conceal the man accused of killing a police officer in Newman, California, Corporal Ronil Singh.”
According to court documents, between December 26 and 28, the defendants conspired to harbor and conceal Gustavo Perez Arriaga, while he evaded capture for the alleged murder of Newman Police Corporal Ronil Singh. It is alleged that in the early hours of December 26, 2018, Arriaga, an alien not lawfully present in the United States, shot and killed Corporal Singh. Thereafter, the seven defendants helped conceal and harbor Arriaga, despite knowing that he had killed a police officer. The defendants transported, hosted, and provisioned Arriaga with clothes, money, and a new cellphone; concealed the truck that Arriaga was driving when he allegedly killed Corporal Singh; and made plans and wired money to smuggle Arriaga out of California and back to Mexico. Additionally, Razo-Quiroz, a convicted felon, disposed of the gun that Arriaga allegedly used to murder Corporal Singh.
This case is the product of an investigation led by Homeland Security Investigations and the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office with assistance by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations; Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) task force; Southern Tri-County HIDTA; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; California Highway Patrol; the Sheriffs’ Offices for Kern, Merced, and Santa Cruz Counties; and the Police Departments for Merced, Turlock, Modesto, and Santa Cruz. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen A. Escobar and Laura D. Withers are prosecuting the case.
If convicted of the firearms offenses, Razo-Quiroz faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum statutory penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that
carried the fourth most
severe disposition and
Penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that
carried the fourth most
severe disposition and
Penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total probation time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and probation was imposed
Format: N4
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
FRESNO, Calif. — Ray Brewer, 66, of Porterville, and Sheridan, Montana, was sentenced today to six years and nine months in prison for running a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme where he purported to turn cow manure into green energy, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced.
According to court records, from March 2014 through December 2019, Brewer stole $8,750,000 from investors by claiming to build anaerobic digesters on dairies in Fresno, Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties, as well as other counties in California and Idaho. Anaerobic digesters are large machines that use microorganisms to break down biodegradable material and turn it into methane. The methane can then be sold on the open market as green energy. The methane also produces Renewable Energy Credits (REC), which represent the property right to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions achieved through green energy creation. RECs are commonly purchased by companies to meet green energy regulatory, contractual, and initiative requirements or commitments. Brewer’s investors were supposed to receive 66% of all net profits as well as tax incentives.
Brewer made various misrepresentations to his investors. Brewer took investors on tours of dairies where he said that he was going to build the digesters and sent them forged lease agreements with the dairy owners. He also sent the investors altered agreements with banks that made it appear as though he had obtained millions of dollars in loans to build the digesters. Moreover, he sent the investors forged contracts with multinational companies that made it appear as though he had secured revenue streams. Finally, he sent the investors fake pictures of the digesters under construction. None of this was true.
Fake digester picture sent to investors
After Brewer received the investors’ money, he transferred the funds to multiple other bank accounts that he opened in the names of different entities, his family members, and an alias. He used false descriptions for the transfers. He did so to conceal the location, source, ownership, and control of the money before using it for personal expenditures. These expenditures included two plots of land that were 10 or more acres each, a 3,700 square foot custom home, and new Dodge Ram pickup trucks.
Brewer subsequently told his investors that the digesters were progressing when that was not the case. He did so by sending them fake documents: construction schedules, invoices for project-related costs, power generation reports, RECs, and pictures.
In some instances, Brewer purported to refund investors all or some of their money. The refunds, however, came from newly received money from other investors who had not authorized Brewer to use their money in this way. When Brewer’s investors realized the fraud and obtained civil judgments against him, he moved to Montana and assumed a new identity.
Upon his arrest, Brewer told officers that they had the wrong man. He also claimed to have been in the Navy and recalled how he once saved several soldiers during a fire by blocking the flames with his body so that they could escape. Brewer has since admitted that these were both lies meant to curry favor with law enforcement.
This case was the product of an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph D. Barton, Henry Z. Carbajal III, and Alyson A. Berg prosecuted the case.
FRESNO, Calif. — A four-count indictment was unsealed Tuesday charging Ivan Isho, 41, of Phoenix, Arizona, with wire fraud, impersonation of a federal officer, and cyberstalking, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.
According to court documents, between September 2016 and April 2017, Isho claimed to be a special agent with the FBI to a couple living in Ceres. He claimed that as an FBI agent he could help the couple acquire visas for three family members living overseas. Although they paid him over $6,700 to facilitate the visa process, no visas have issued, and Isho has returned none of the money.
The indictment alleges that between April 2016 and April 2018, Isho harassed and intimidated another victim using the telephone, internet, and internet-based social media platforms in a manner likely to cause substantial emotional distress to this victim.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura D. Withers is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Isho faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The 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