Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-CA  2:17-cr-00212
Case Name:   USA v. Lima et al
  Press Releases:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Three indictments have been unsealed, charging several DMV employees and others for their roles in a conspiracy to sell California Class A commercial driver’s licenses (CDL) to unqualified drivers, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced. These indictments are related to three earlier indictments stemming from the same investigation.

U.S. v. Jagpal Singh, et al., 2:17-cr-210 MCE

On November 16, 2017, five Southern California residents were charged in a 43-count indictment. According to court documents, Jagpal “Paul” Singh, 59; Jagdish Singh, 55; Tajinder Singh, 34; and Parminder Singh, 27, allegedly paid bribes to DMV employees to access and alter records in the DMV’s database in Sacramento. Records were allegedly altered to show that applicants for CDLs had passed the required tests when, in truth, they had not done so, and in some cases had not even taken the tests. In so doing, this caused the DMV to issue permits and completed CDLs despite the applicants not having taken or passed those tests. Jagdish Singh and Tajinder Singh are also alleged to have conspired with co‑defendant Shawana Denise Harris, 47, who worked at the Rancho Cucamonga DMV Office, paying her to get commercial permits for applicants without them having to take or pass the written CDL test. On November 2, 2017, Kari Scattaglia and Lisa Terraciano pleaded guilty for their roles in the conspiracy. (case number 2:17-cr-187 GEB).

United States v. Mahboob, 2:17-cr-213 TLN

On November 16, 2017, Rahim Mahboob, 66, of Los Angeles, was charged in a 13-count indictment alleging that he conspired with Terraciano, paying her to alter DMV records to incorrectly indicate that applicants had passed written exams for CDLs when, in fact, they had not taken or passed those exams. These fraudulent entries in the DMV’s database caused the DMV to issue permits and ultimately CDLs to Mahboob’s clients.

United States v. Lima, et al., 2:17-cr-212 JAM

On November 16, 2017, two Stockton residents were charged in an 11-count indictment. According to court documents, Ruvila “Ruby” Lima, 49, and Poya “Sameer” Khanjan, 26, conspired with Juan Arturo Arroyo Gomez and Donald E. Freeman Jr. (charged in case number 2:17-cr-207 MCE) to acquire commercial driving permits for individuals who had not taken or passed the written exam. Freeman, a DMV employee in the Tracy DMV office, allegedly accessed the DMV database without authorization to alter DMV records to fraudulently show that the tests were passed. Freeman and Arroyo are scheduled to appear on December 13, 2017 for initial appearance and waiver of indictment, and to plead guilty to the information charging them with conspiracy to commit bribery, identity fraud, and unauthorized access to a computer, on December 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr.

Additionally, on November 17, 2017, Aaron Gilliam, 50, of Los Angeles, pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit bribery, identity fraud, and unauthorized access of a computer (case number 2:17-cr-200 GEB). According to court documents, Gilliam was a DMV employee at the North Hollywood Office and accepted bribes in exchange for altering DMV records to provide permits for commercial driver’s licenses for applicants who had not taken or passed the necessary examinations.

The indictments are part of a series of ongoing investigations by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Office of Internal Affairs, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (ICE HSI), and the Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Todd A. Pickles and Rosanne L. Rust are prosecuting the cases.

If convicted, the defendants each faces 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 as to the defendants who have not pleaded guilty are only allegations; these defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VTjd9qZOrAQ0xIbPFtFOrnB9xVqfyPokyi8-0fUfbz8
  Last Updated: 2024-04-01 15:11:16 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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