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 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
RALEIGH – United States Attorney Robert J. Higdon, Jr. announced that today in federal court, BRENDA JOYCE HALL, 51, of Godwin, NC, had an initial appearance on an indictment charging her with, among other things, Conspiracy to Commit Student Loan Fraud and Wire Fraud, and Aggravated Identity Theft.
United States Attorney Higdon stated, “This defendant is charged with helping to orchestrate a long-standing fraud upon one of our institutions of higher learning by fabricating high school transcripts. A scheme that is alleged to have resulted in in substantial federal education funding being used by Hall for her own personal interests and gain.”
“Per the indictment, Ms. Hall seems to have viewed Federal student aid as a private slush fund rather that what it is – funding to help students make their dream of a higher education a reality,” said Neil Sanchez, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General Southern Regional Office. “As the law enforcement arm of the U.S. Department of Education, we are committed to fighting student aid fraud and ensuring that those who steal student aid or game the system for their own selfish purposes are stopped and held accountable for their criminal actions.”
The Indictment alleges that HALL and various others resided at a place referred to as “The Ranch” in Cumberland County, that was owned and operated by a tent revival preacher. According to the Indictment, The Ranch consisted largely of several related families, but outsiders and their children were also invited to, and did, reside there over time. The owner of The Ranch also owned various fish markets in the same area. HALL, who is alleged to have worked at The Ranch and at the fish markets, also operated a non-public home school, known as “Halls of Knowledge”, from The Ranch.
The Indictment further alleges that HALL and others carried out a scheme to fraudulently acquire hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federal Student Aid to fund the operations of the Ranch, the fish markets, and to make other purchases. To carry out the scheme, Hall and others would approach individuals residing on the Ranch and solicit their enrollment in an online course of college-level studies at Wake Tech. The individuals solicited are referred to in the Indictment as the “Student Participants.”
To attend the online course of college level studies at Wake Tech, the Student Participants were required to have successfully completed their high school level of education. But most of the Student Participants never graduated from high school, and none completed their high school education through HALL’s home school, the Halls of Knowledge. Many of the Student Participants had no genuine desire nor intention to attend college courses and graduate from Wake Tech. None had the financial means to attend college without federal student aid.
Nevertheless, the Indictment charges that HALL and others provided various assurances to the Student Participants to get them to agree to be enrolled at Wake Tech. For example, various Student Participants were told: (1) they would receive a high school diploma; (2) would receive a laptop or would get to keep some money; (3) they would not have to actually do the coursework; or (4) they would not be responsible for the student loans.
The Indictment then alleges that HALL fabricated high school transcripts for the Student Participants. The transcripts represented that each of the Student Participants successfully completed four years of high school education through Halls of Knowledge. The transcripts also fraudulently represented, for each year of study, the courses allegedly taken by the Student Participant, and the grade the Student Participant received in each course. HALL directed another resident of The Ranch to notarize these transcripts.
The Indictment alleges that HALL assisted the Student Participants to become enrolled at Wake Tech by, among other things, causing the fake transcripts and other documents to be delivered to Wake Tech. In addition to becoming enrolled in Wake Tech by fraud, Federal Student Aid was also awarded to the Student Participants based on the fraud. As much as $700,000 in federal student aid was awarded based on the fake transcripts.
The Indictment alleges that funds left over after the payment of tuition were supposed to support other educational costs for the students. But the students were not permitted by HALL and the Ranch owner to keep all of the funds. Instead, the Student Participants were directed, in some instances, to cash out the remaining funds and pay them over to The Ranch. The remaining student aid monies were then used to fund the operations of the Ranch, the fish markets, and other ventures.
The Indictment further alleges that after the Student Participants were enrolled at Wake Tech, the Students did not, in fact, attend all of the courses in which they were enrolled. Instead HALL, and others at The Ranch, would fraudulently attend and complete online courses for the Student Participants. This allowed the scheme to go on, undetected, for several years.
For her role in the conduct, HALL is charged with various federal offenses, carrying different maximum penalties. Conspiracy to Commit Student Loan Fraud, and Student Loan Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and Title 20, United States Code, Section 1097(a), are punishable by up to five years in prison. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, and Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 1343, are punishable by up to twenty years in prison. Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028A(a)(1), is punishable by not less than 2, nor more than two, years in prison, consecutive to any other sentence.
An indictment is an allegation of a crime. The defendant is presumed under the law to be innocent until proven guilty.
The investigation of this case is being conducted by the United States Department of Education Office of the Inspector General. Assistant United States Attorney William M. Gilmore represents the United States.
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 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 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
NEW BERN — The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Robert J. Higdon, Jr., announced that today, United States District Judge Louise W. Flanagan sentenced Howard Joseph Burchfield, 36, of Leland to 15 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. On October 18, 2018, Burchfield pled guilty to one count of making a false statement to a licensed firearm dealer.
The investigation revealed that on July 13, 2010, a judge for the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County, Florida ordered that BURCHFIELD be involuntarily committed to a mental institution for a period of up to six months due to mental illness and threats of harm to others. In addition, on February 5, 2013, the 17th District Court in Brighton, Colorado, adjudicated BURCHFIELD as mentally defective. This mental health history rendered BURCHFIELD ineligible to possess firearms.
BURCHFIELD, nonetheless, tried to purchase at least five firearms from 2015 to 2018. In particular, on April 1, 2017, BURCHFIELD attempted to purchase a Remington 12-gauge shotgun at a Wal-Mart in Shallote, North Carolina. In doing so, he completed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, the over the counter firearm transaction record. Question 11.f of the form asked, “Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” Contrary to his history, BURCHFIELD checked the “No” box and signed the form, indicating that all his answers were true, correct, and complete.
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. Since 2017 the United States Department of Justice has reinvigorated the PSN program and has targeted 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.
That effort has been implemented through the Take Back North Carolina Initiative of The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina. This initiative emphasizes the regional assignment of federal prosecutors to work with law enforcement and District Attorney’s Offices on a sustained basis in those communities to reduce the violent crime rate, drug trafficking, and crimes against law enforcement.
The case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jake D. Pugh is prosecuting the case for the government.
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
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
NEW BERN, N.C. – Raleigh business owner Alton Perkins, was sentenced today to 24 months in prison for failing to account for approximately $3 million diverted from his companies for his own personal use between 2015 and 2018. Perkins was also ordered to make restitution to the Internal Revenue Service in the amount of $520,344 for taxes owed from 2015-2018.
“We are holding accountable tax cheats who avoid paying their fair share,” said U.S. Attorney Michael Easley. “This CEO diverted company money to fund vacations, expensive jewelry and private school tuition. His attempts to defraud the government have led to time in federal prison.”
According to evidence summarized in court, Perkins moved large amounts of money from his business accounts into his personal bank accounts. These funds were then used for personal expenditures, including the purchase of a Wake Forest home, Rolex watches, vacations, and private school tuition. None of the approximately three million dollars spent by Perkins on these personal items was accounted for in his taxes filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
Perkins is the chairman and CEO of AmericaTowne, a company, according to its website, focused on increasing exports of American products to China. AmericaTowne, which was funded by investor dollars, included a plan to build an American-style community in China that would include hotels, small businesses, and a theme park. Perkins is currently involved in a civil lawsuit with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Case No. 5:19-CV-00243-FL) over the unregistered private placement offerings and the sale of securities for AmericaTowne and other business entities controlled by Perkins.
Perkins pled guilty on December 12, 2022 to a felony charge of Making and Subscribing a False Tax Return Under Penalty of Perjury, for his failure to account for his personal expenditures on his 2016 personal income tax return. According to evidence presented in court, for tax year 2016, Perkins stated that his total income was $21,933. However, banking records show that Perkins spent $1,208,394 that year on personal items including, a golf cart, a family trip to Hawaii, private high school tuition, and a Rolex – all with funds taken from his corporate bank accounts.
Michael Easley, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, made the announcement after United States District Judge Louise W. Flanagan pronounced the sentence. The Internal Revenue Service investigated the case and Assistant U.S. Attorneys William M. Gilmore and Karen Haughton prosecuted the case.
Related court documents and information are located on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or on PACER by searching for Case No 5:22-CR-00265-FL.
RALEIGH — The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Robert J. Higdon, Jr., announced that today, United States District Judge James C. Dever, III, sentenced Hasan Eminof, 20, of Wilmington to 36 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. On November 19, 2018, EMINOF pled guilty to a three-count Indictment, charging two counts of making a false statement to a licensed firearm dealer and one count of possession of a firearm by a person who had been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
The investigation revealed that on April 14, 2015, the Brunswick County District Court ordered that EMINOF be involuntarily committed to a mental institution for a period of 15 days due to mental illness and being a danger to himself. Following a review at the end of that period, he was committed for an additional 15 days. In addition, on January 22, 2016, the Wayne County District Court in Goldsboro, North Carolina, ordered that EMINOF be involuntarily committed to a mental facility for 30 days based on his being mentally ill and a danger to himself and others. This mental health history rendered EMINOF ineligible to possess firearms.
EMINOF, nonetheless, tried to purchase firearms on at least three occasions from June to October of 2016. In particular, on June 8, 2016, EMINOF attempted to purchase an AR-15 rifle at Backwater Guns in Wilmington, and on July 21, 2016, he attempted to purchase a “long gun” at Bullzeye Shooting, also in Wilmington. Both times, EMINOF completed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, the over the counter firearm transaction record. Question 11.f of the form asked, “Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” In both instances, contrary to his history, EMINOF checked the “No” box and signed the form, indicating that all his answers were true, correct, and complete. Despite the misrepresentations, the background checks correctly determined that he was a prohibited person, and the firearms dealers declined to make the sales.
Still, on March 4, 2018, EMINOF was found to be in possession of multiple firearms. That day, EMINOF was on state probation, and his probation officers conducted a warrantless search of his Wilmington residence. When they arrived, they found EMINOF sitting in his parked car, which smelled of marijuana. Searching the car, the officers found not only a small amount of marijuana but also a stockpile of firearms – four handguns, a pistol-grip shotgun, and a rifle. Four of the firearms were loaded, and officers also seized additional loaded magazines for the handguns as well as loose ammunition for the shotgun and rifle. In addition to the firearms and ammunition, officers recovered from the car four knives, a brass knuckles Taser device, six cell phones, and a full-head goblin mask.
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. Since 2017 the United States Department of Justice has reinvigorated the PSN program and has targeted 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.
The case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney Jake D. Pugh is prosecuting the case for the government.
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
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
RALEIGH – Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, announces that GUADALUPE ESPINOSA-PENA, age 61, of Mexico, residing in Wake County, North Carolina, was sentenced to one month imprisonment and one year supervised release by United States District Judge Louise W. Flanagan after a guilty plea to illegal voting by an alien.
According to court records, ESPINOSA-PENA is a lawful permanent resident whose application for United States citizenship had been denied. ESPINOSA-PENA attempted to register to vote in North Carolina previously, but was informed he could not register as he was not a United States citizen. Thereafter, ESPINOSA-PENA nonetheless completed a voter registration with an election official’s aid and registered to vote. The election official advised ESPINOSA-PENA that “if he wanted his voice to be heard, he needed to vote.” As detailed in the Indictment, ESPINOSA-PENA voted in the General Election of 2016 in Wake County, North Carolina held in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President of the United States.
The case was investigated under the framework of the Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF) in the Eastern District of North Carolina led by Homeland Security Investigations, among other agencies. The investigation as to voting fraud is ongoing.
NEW BERN – Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, announces that DENSLO ALLEN PAIGE, age 66, of Wake County, North Carolina, was sentenced by United States District Court Judge Louise Wood Flanagan to two (2) months active time in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons, one (1) year supervised release, $250 fine, and a $25 special assessment. PAIGE’s sentencing follows her guilty plea to aiding and abetting voting by an alien.
According to court records, PAIGE, a paid volunteer and former election official with the North Carolina Board of Elections, advised Guadalupe Espinosa-Pena, a Mexican citizen, to register to vote and to vote in the 2016 General Elections.
PAIGE knew that Espinosa-Pena was not a United States citizen. Espinosa-Pena had been twice denied naturalization. However, PAIGE told Espinosa-Pena that “if he wanted his voice to be heard, he needed to vote.” PAIGE assisted Espinosa-Pena in completing his voter’s registration form.
The first question in Espinosa-Pena’s voter registration form was “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” The form contained two boxes, one for “Yes” and one for “No.” The form further stated “IF YOU CHECKED ‘NO’ IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION, DO NOT SUBMIT THIS FORM.”
According to statements made by PAIGE, she assisted Espinosa-Pena in the completion of the voter registration form and intentionally left the citizenship question unanswered. PAIGE said that she then submitted the form to a Board of Elections official for processing. At some later point, after the form had been submitted to the Board of Elections, some other person apparently checked the citizenship block “yes,” and Espinosa was allowed to register to vote.
Espinosa-Pena was assigned a polling station in Wake County, North Carolina. Espinosa-Pena voted in the 2016 General Election held in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice-President, and Member of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Higdon stated “The right to vote is a precious privilege available only to citizens of the United States. When a non-citizen votes in a federal election it serves to dilute and devalue the vote of American citizens and places the decision making authority of the American electorate in the hands of those who have no right to make those choices. This case is particularly disturbing as the defendant worked for the Board of Elections. My office will do its part to protect the rights of every American citizen to cast their vote freely and to have it counted fairly.”
The case was investigated by the Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF) in the Eastern District of North Carolina lead by Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Homeland Security Investigations, and assisted by Enforcement Removal Operations, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, among other agencies. The investigation as to voting fraud is ongoing.
Multiple Defendants Voted In More Than One Election
WILMINGTON, NC – Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina today announced that nineteen foreign nationals were charged with, among other crimes, voting by alien for their actions prior to and on November 8, 2016. A twentieth defendant was charged with aiding and abetting a fellow defendant in falsely claiming United States citizenship in order to register to vote.
A federal grand jury in Wilmington, North Carolina returned an Indictment charging the following foreign nationals with false claim of United States citizenship in order to register to vote, and voting by an alien:
Jose Cruz Solano-Rodriguez, age 41, of Mexico;
Guadalupe Espinosa-Pena, age 63, of Mexico;
Sarah Emilia Silverio-Polanco, age 35, of the Dominican Republic;
Elizabeth Nene Amachaghi, age 44, of Nigeria;
Maria Rufina Castillo-Boswell, age 31, of Philippines;
Dora Maybe Damatta-Rodriguez, age 64, of Panama;
Elvis David Fullerton, age 54, of Grenada;
Olive Agatha Martin, age 71, of Guyana; and
Kaoru Sauls, age 54, of Japan.
Separately, criminal charges of voting by an alien were filed against the following foreign nationals:
Jose Jaime Ramiro-Torres, age 52, of El Salvador;
Juan Francisco Landeros-Mireles, age 64, of Mexico;
Alessandro Cannizzaro, age 46, of Italy;
Dieudonne Soifils, age 71, of Haiti;
Hyo Suk George, age 69, of Korea;
Merius Jean, age 54, of Haiti;
Rosemarie Angelika Harris, age 60, of Germany; and
Daniel Tadeusz Romanowski, age 39, of Poland.
Also, a federal grand jury in Wilmington has returned an Indictment charging an eighteenth defendant, Diana Patricia Franco-Rodriguez, age 26, of Mexico, with fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents, and voting by an alien.
Additionally, a federal grand jury in Wilmington has returned an Indictment charging Denslo Allen Paige, age 66, with aiding and abetting Espinosa-Pena in falsely claiming United States citizenship in order to register to vote.
Separately on August 14, 2018, Ramon Esteban Paez-Jerez, age 58, of the Dominican Republic, was charged and pleaded guilty to a two-count Criminal Information charging him with passport fraud and voting by an alien.
According to the Criminal Information, Paez-Jerez in 1988 was ordered deported from the United States and failed to appear for his scheduled removal. According to court records, Paez-Jerez assumed a fraudulent identity and applied for amnesty. Paez-Jerez in 1989 was granted lawful permanent status under the false identity and in 1999 was naturalized contrary to law as a United States citizen. On July 7, 2007, Paez-Jerez registered to vote in North Carolina under his fraudulent identity.
On September 16, 2009, Paez-Jerez made a false statement in an application for a United States passport when he applied under the fraudulent identity and failed to disclose his real name.
On November 8, 2016, Paez-Jerez illegally voted in the General Election of 2016 in Wake County, North Carolina, knowing he had illegally obtained United States citizenship.
Paez-Jerez faces maximum penalties of eleven years’ imprisonment, a $350,000 fine, and a term of supervised release following any term of imprisonment. Sentencing is scheduled for the term of court commencing on December 11, 2018, in New Bern, North Carolina.
If convicted of false claim of United States citizenship in order to register to vote, and voting by an alien, Amachaghi, Castillo-Boswell, Damatta-Rodriguez, Espinosa-Pena, Fullerton, Martin, Sauls, Silverio-Polanco, and Solano-Rodriguez, would face maximum penalties of six years’ imprisonment, a $350,000 fine, and a term of supervised release following any term of imprisonment.
If convicted of voting by an alien, Cannizzaro, George, Harris, Jean, Landeros-Mireles, Ramiro-Torres, Romanowski, and Soifils would face maximum penalties of twelve months imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, and a term of supervised release following any term of imprisonment.
If convicted of fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents, and voting by an alien, Franco-Rodriguez would face maximum penalties of twenty-six years imprisonment, a $350,000 fine, and a term of supervised release following any term of imprisonment.
If convicted of aiding and abetting in falsely claiming United States citizenship in order to register to vote, Denslo Allen Paige would face a maximum imprisonment term of five years, a $250,000 fine, and a term of supervised release following any term of imprisonment.
The charges and allegations contained in the Indictments and Criminal Informations are merely accusations. An Indictment is a formal written accusation originating with the United States Attorney and issued by a Grand Jury against a party charged with a crime. A Criminal Information is a formal written accusation filed directly by the United States Attorney. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The cases are being investigated under the newly created framework of the Document and Benefit Fraud Task Force (DBFTF) in the Eastern District of North Carolina lead by Immigration and Customs Enforcement - Homeland Security Investigations, and assisted by Enforcement Removal Operations, and the Department of State - Diplomatic Security Service. The investigation as to voting fraud is ongoing.
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
GREENVILLE – The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Robert J. Higdon, Jr. announced that today in federal court, Senior United States District Judge Malcolm J. Howard sentenced RAMEIK DESEN ANDERSON, 23, to 96 months of imprisonment followed by 3 years of supervised release.
ANDERSON was named in a 1-count Indictment filed on June 15, 2017. On September 11, 2017, ANDERSON subsequently pled guilty to one-count of Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition by a Felon.
The evidence developed during the investigation showed that on Wednesday, January 4, 2017, at 5:30 a.m., ANDERSON fired multiple rounds from a 9mm handgun at an occupied residence in Tarboro, North Carolina. Shortly after fleeing the residence, ANDERSON was observed by an officer with Tarboro Police Department (TPD) running a red light and traveling at a high rate of speed away from the area. The officer attempted to conduct a traffic stop on the vehicle; however, ANDERSON refused to stop, and a vehicle pursuit ensued with the officer operating his lights and siren. ANDERSON lost control of the vehicle and crashed the vehicle into a ditch. ANDERSON then jumped out of the vehicle and fled on foot. ANDERSON was eventually apprehended and arrested after utilizing a K-9 and several officers to assist in searching the nearby wooded area.
There were three other occupants in the vehicle at the time of the vehicle crash. All three occupants were interviewed at the crash site and were consistent with their statements that ANDERSON was driving the vehicle and that they were fleeing the scene of a shooting. Each occupant stated that ANDERSON pulled into the residence, exited the vehicle, and began firing multiple rounds into the home. A search of the vehicle recovered a 9mm handgun (with an obliterated serial number and later determined to be stolen), and a .38 caliber handgun. Both firearms were loaded with live ammunition. The 9mm was jammed with a spent round lodged into the ejection port of the firearm. Additionally, a spent bullet casing was found on the driver’s side floorboard.
Officers responded to the shooting scene and recovered 11 spent rounds and one unspent 9mm round from the roadway in front of the home. The homeowner and seven other individuals were in the home at the time of shooting. None of the occupants were injured.
This case was part of the Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative which encourages federal, state, and local agencies to cooperate in a unified “team effort” against gun crime, targeting repeat offenders who continually plague their communities.
The Tarboro Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives conducted the criminal investigation of this case. Assistant United States Attorney Peggah B. Wilson handled the prosecution of this case for the government.
NEW BERN, N.C. – United States Attorney Michael Easley announced that a Cary man was sentenced today to 181 months in prison after carjacking a woman at gunpoint and firing multiple shots at the Wake County Public Safety Center in downtown Raleigh. Willie Lee Hayes, Jr., 51, pled guilty to the charges.
“Hayes was an armed and dangerous felon with lengthy criminal history who put law enforcement and the public at risk,” said U.S. Attorney Michael Easley. “Let today’s 15-year sentence stand as a warning. Our office is prioritizing the prosecution of repeat felons driving gun violence in our communities.”
“The Wake County Sheriff’s Office would like to thank the US Attorney’s Office for their diligence in bringing this case to a successful conclusion,” stated Sheriff Willie L. Rowe. “The actions of Willie L. Hayes, Jr. on October 6, 2020 put the lives of several members of the public as well as staff members of our office in grave jeopardy. It is a miracle that none of the bullets fired by Mr. Hayes directly struck any of the numerous people in the vicinity. We would also like to thank our partners with the Raleigh Police Department, Cary Police Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and others for their assistance with this case.”
“The Raleigh Police Department expresses gratitude to the Department of Justice for their due diligence in prosecuting this case,” said Raleigh Police Chief Estella Patterson. “We are thankful no one was seriously injured in this violent act against the Wake County Sheriff’s Office and several other public safety agencies. An act of violence against any public safety partner is an act of violence against our entire community. Our department is committed to collaborating with other agencies to bring justice to those who harm our communities.”
According to court documents and other information presented in court, on October 6, 2020, at around 3:00 pm, a white Dodge Journey stopped on Salisbury Street in Raleigh in front of the John H. Baker Public Safety Center. The Public Safety Center houses the detention center, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Fire Services, the City-County Bureau of Identification, and the Wake County Sheriff's Office. A man, later identified as Hayes, stepped out of the right front passenger seat and pulled out a handgun. He fired multiple shots toward the front of the building, where several people were present. Shots hit the building’s front door and windows. While no one was hit, falling glass from a broken window injured a Wake County Deputy’s leg. Hayes got back into the car, which fled South on Salisbury Street away from the scene. Officers recovered 12-9mm shell casings from the road.
A witness provided officers with a license plate number, and a registration check revealed that the car was registered to Hayes and a woman with the initials J.N., both listed as sharing an address on Rose Street in Cary. Officers soon located J.N. driving the Dodge Journey near the home. During an interview, J.N. explained that she purchased a Stoeger 9mm pistol about two weeks prior but hadn’t seen it for around a week. Before the shooting, Hayes asked her to come pick him up and take him to a gas station. But during the drive, Hayes pulled out the 9mm handgun and demanded that she drive him to the Wake County courthouse (referring to the Public Safety Center). He said that if she stopped the vehicle for any reason, he would shoot her. When she arrived in front of the courthouse, Hayes opened the font passenger door of the vehicle and began firing. Hayes then told her to drive away and not to stop until they were back home. She had dropped him off at the house and had just left when officers stopped her car.
Deputies surrounded the Rose Street residence and took Hayes into custody. They executed a search warrant and found the Stoeger 9mm pistol in the seat of a moped. J.N. was shown a photograph of the firearm and confirmed it to be her pistol that Hayes had used to shoot the courthouse.
At the time of the shooting, Hayes’ criminal record included five state felony drug convictions, three convictions for assault on a female, and a felony conviction for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. He had previously been convicted as a habitual felon in state court.
Michael Easley, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Louise W. Flanagan. The Raleigh and Cary Police Departments, Wake County Sheriff’s Office, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jake D. Pugh prosecuted.
Related court documents and information can be found on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or on PACER by searching for Case No. 5:20-cr-0499-FL.
RALEIGH – United States Attorney Robert J. Higdon, Jr. announced that today in federal court, United States District Judge James C. Dever III sentenced KIMJUAN DWANE ELLIS, JR., 25, of Warrenton to 235 months imprisonment, followed by 5 years of supervised release. He was found to be an Armed Career Criminal thereby subjecting him to a minimum term of imprisonment of 15 years.
ELLIS was named in an Indictment filed on January 9, 2019, charging him with being a felon in possession of ammunition. On August 20, 2019, ELLIS pled guilty to that charge.
According to the investigation, on October 19, 2018, officers with the Norlina Police Department responded to a shooting in the parking lot of the Blue Waves convenience store in Norlina, North Carolina. The store’s surveillance camera captured ELLIS shooting another man in the chest after an apparent argument. ELLIS fled the scene after the shooting. The victim was transported to Duke University Medical Center where he was treated for his wounds and survived. Officers recovered a spent shell casing in the area where the video captured the shooting. The gun used by ELLIS was never recovered. ELLIS was later arrested in a vehicle with two other occupants, along with additional firearms and ammunition, one of which had been stolen. None of those firearms, however, was used in the shooting.
This case is 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.
This case is also 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 United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina implements the PSN Program through its Take Back North Carolina Initiative. This initiative emphasizes the regional assignment of federal prosecutors to work with law enforcement and District Attorney’s Offices on a sustained basis in those communities to reduce the violent crime rate, drug trafficking, and crimes against law enforcement.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Warren County Sheriff’s Office, and the Norlina Police Department conducted the investigation of this matter jointly. Assistant United States Attorney Robert J. Dodson prosecuted the case for the government.
RALEIGH, N.C. – A Mebane man pleaded guilty yesterday for his role in a $20 million dollar leasing fraud scheme. Dan Raymond, an owner and operator of multiple computer equipment and small business financial consulting companies had a role brokering fraudulent lease deals valued at more than $20 million dollars with 25 victim financers. Raymond pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud and faces up to 20 years in prison when sentenced later this year.
“Federal law enforcement specializes in unraveling complex financial frauds like this one, where a computer equipment supplier bilked financiers for millions in a scheme that lasted years,” said U.S. Attorney Michael Easley. “The Research Triangle is a hub for tech and innovation. We are ramping up white collar fraud enforcement to ensure fraudsters who take advantage of our booming tech sector are held accountable.”
According to court documents and information presented in court, from March 2016 to January 2022, while he was living in Cary, Raymond executed a scheme to defraud financing companies in connection with computer equipment lease deals. The targets of Raymond’s scheme were financing companies who offered small to medium-sized businesses (“customers”) financing and secured leases for computer servers and other computer equipment. Under these leasing programs, financers paid for and took title to the equipment and then in turn leased it to the customers for a fixed term. Financers entered into agreements with brokers who, for a fee, could bring potential equipment leasing opportunities to the financers for evaluation and approval. As a third-party independent financing source, financers did not manufacture or supply the computer equipment. Instead, the brokers, like Raymond, arranged for the purchase and delivery of the equipment to the customers, who then leased that equipment from the financers.
Raymond targeted financially-distressed small business customers throughout the country and offered them leases for computer equipment. Typically, the customers Raymond targeted were seeking a cash infusion for operating expenses and had no immediate needs for computer equipment. Nonetheless, Raymond enticed customers by offering lease deals that included large cash rebates and long-term payback options. Raymond falsely assured customers that this was a common and legitimate practice, and that they could always sell the computer equipment if they chose to. The cash rebates and payback options offered by Raymond were not known to or approved by the financers.
Raymond executed the lease agreements with the customers and then submitted the leases and invoices to a financer. If approved, the financer paid Raymond a lump sum payment which was intended to represent the cost of the computer equipment to be supplied by Raymond, plus a small fee to be retained by Raymond as profit. After the leases were signed and approved by the financer, Raymond instructed the customers to falsify documents representing that the computer equipment was delivered, installed and working properly at their business locations when, in fact, no equipment had been delivered or installed. These false declarations enabled Raymond to be paid by the financer. After Raymond obtained payment from the financers, he wired the cash rebates to the customers from his business checking account. Raymond sometimes did ship computer equipment to the customers. However, whereas the leases called for name brand computer servers and hardware valued between $30,000 - $100,000, Raymond sent generic computer parts valued at $50 - $3,500.
Raymond’s was affiliated with businesses, including Integrity IT Solutions, Inc. (“IITS”), Logos Consulting, LLC (“Logos”), Lendberry Corp. (“Lendberry”), US Server Supply (“USSS”), Online Concepts Inc. (“OC”), Referral Marketing Services (“RMS”), Sandriver Group, Inc. (“Sandriver”), Business Repair Consultants (“BRC”), and Buyback Funders, LLC (“Buyback”).
Michael Easley, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle accepted the plea. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating the case and Assistant U.S. Attorney Toby Lathan is prosecuting the case.
Related court documents and information can be found on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or on PACER by searching for Case No. 5:23-CR-96-BO.
RALEIGH, N.C. – Anthony Eugene Kee, of Hobbsville, Gates County, was sentenced today to 18 months in prison for possession of a firearm by a felon. On March 4, 2021, Hayes pled guilty to the charge.
According to court documents and statements made during hearings, the Gates County Sheriff’s Office began investigating the defendant Anthony Kee in February 2020 following citizen complaints about drug activity at his Hobbsville residence. At the time, Kee already had two previous state convictions for drug felonies. After a controlled buy of crack cocaine and surveillance of apparent drug activity, law enforcement obtained a search warrant, which they executed the morning of July 2, 2020.
Kee was home and told officers that he had felt them coming. He said he was not concerned about the drugs but was more worried about having a gun. He then directed officers to a blue Toyota in the front yard sitting on jacks, where they recovered a black Hi-Point 9mm pistol on the floor of the trunk. In the glove compartment and center console, officers also found several rounds of shotgun and 9mm ammunition. In the house and a shed on the property, officers recovered a variety of drug packaging materials and a small amount of marijuana.
Kee was taken to the station, where he waived his rights and agreed to an interview. He admitted to selling cocaine beginning in 2011, although none had been at his house at the time of the search. He said he bought a gun years ago on the streets for protection.
G. Norman Acker, III, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. The Gates County Sheriff’s Office and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jake D. Pugh prosecuted the case.
Related court documents and information can be found on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or on PACER by searching for Case No. 2:20-cr-00047-BO-1.
Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, announced today that more than $65 million in Department of Justice grants is available to help communities combat human trafficking and serve adults and children who are victimized in trafficking operations.
“Our nation is facing difficult challenges, none more pressing than the scourge of human trafficking. Human traffickers pose a dire threat to public safety and countering this threat remains one of the Administration’s top domestic priorities,” said Katharine T. Sullivan, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. “The Department of Justice is front and center in the fight against this insidious crime. OJP is making historic amounts of grant funding available to ensure that our communities have access to innovative and diverse solutions.”
“The trafficking of human beings is one of the most outrageous and shocking crimes committed. The victims are often terrorized day after day after day – manipulated through violence, drugs, emotional abuse, and by depriving them of any independent means of support. Sadly, there are many of these cases and we are committed to aggressive investigation and prosecution wherever we find them, but we need the public’s assistance. The funds made available through these OJP grants will greatly assist our communities in developing, continuing, and reasearching both new and proven means for addressing and preventing this horrendous crime,” stated United States Attorney Higdon.
The funding is available through OJP, the federal government’s leading source of public safety funding and crime victim assistance in state, local and tribal jurisdictions. OJP’s programs support a wide array of activities and services, including programs that support human trafficking task forces and services for human trafficking survivors.
A number of funding opportunities are currently open, with several more opening in the near future:
Missing and Exploited Children Training and Technical Assistance Program
RALEIGH, N.C. – Raleigh business owner Alton Perkins, pled guilty yesterday for failing to account for approximately three-million dollars diverted from his companies for his own personal use between 2015 and 2018.
“Hardworking, taxpaying Americans deserve to know that the government will hold accountable tax cheats who dodge paying their fair share,” said U.S. Attorney Michael Easley. “This CEO tried to dodge paying his due by diverting company money to pay for vacations, expensive jewelry, and private school tuition. Yesterday he paid full price with a guilty plea.”
“People who create elaborate schemes that have no purpose other than to mislead others and defraud the IRS run the very high risk of prosecution" said Donald “Trey” Eakins, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge of the Charlotte Field Office.
According to evidence summarized in court, Perkins moved large amounts of money from his business accounts into his personal bank accounts. These funds were then used for personal expenditures. None of the approximately three million spent by Perkins on these personal items was accounted for in his taxes filed with the IRS.
Perkins is the chairman and CEO of AmericaTowne, a company, according to its website, focused on increasing exports of American products to China. AmericaTowne, which was funded by investor dollars, included a plan to build an American-style community in China that would include hotels, small businesses, and a theme park. Perkins is currently involved in a civil lawsuit with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Case No. 5:19-CV-00243-FL) over the unregistered private placement offerings and the sale of securities for AmericaTowne and other business entities controlled by Perkins.
In court, Perkins pled guilty to making and subscribing to false tax returns for his failure to account for his personal expenditures on his 2016 personal income tax return. According to evidence presented in court, for tax year 2016, Perkins stated that his total income was $21,933. However, banking records show that Perkins spent $1,208,394 that year on personal items including, a golf cart, a family trip to Hawaii, private high school tuition, and a Rolex – all with funds taken from Perkin’s corporate bank accounts.
Perkins pled guilty to one felony charge of Making and Subscribing a False Tax Return Under Penalty of Perjury, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). He faces up to three years in prison. According to the plea agreement, Perkins will make restitution in the amount of $520,344 to the IRS for taxes owed from 2015-2018.
Michael Easley, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, made the announcement after Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones Jr. accepted the plea. The Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation investigated the case and Assistant U.S. Attorneys William M. Gilmore and Karen Haughton prosecuted the case.
Related court documents and information are located on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or on PACER by searching for Case No 5:22-CR-00265-FL.
NEW BERN – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina announced that in federal court on January 4, 2017, United States District Judge Louise W. Flanagan sentenced ANGEL GUERRERO-URIEL, 24, from Apex, N.C., to 252 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release for the Manufacture of Child Pornography (CP). GUERRO-URIEL pled guilty to the charge on July 13, 2015.
In October 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Child Exploitation Task Force (FBICETF) in Raleigh, North Carolina, received a cybertip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) which indicated that images of child sexual exploitation had been uploaded on a social networking website which allows users to share photos, videos, and music. Additionally, the email address and Internet Protocol address (IP address) for the suspect was captured and provided to authorities. The subscriber to that IP address was identified.
Between September 20, 2015, and October 1, 2015, the suspect uploaded 47 files that portrayed child erotica and child sexual exploitation.
On December 15, 2015, the Apex Police Department in Apex, North Carolina, and the FBICETF executed a search warrant at the residence. Agents made contact with ANGEL GUERRERO-URIEL at the residence at which time he provided a statement and consented to a preliminary examination of his cellular phone. Specifically, GUERRERO-URIEL indicated that he lived at the address. Agents subsequently located GUERRERO-URIEL’s phone and a preliminary examination revealed a video of two minor males taking a shower; however, the video did not rise to the level of child pornography (CP). Nonetheless, the defendant acknowledged surreptitiously recording Victim 1, age 7, and Victim 2, age 8, in the shower on December 4, 2015. GUERRERO-URIEL advised that the victims frequently visited his residence because he was a longtime friend of their mothers. However, the defendant acknowledged maintaining iCloud and Dropbox accounts linked to his phone which contained images of CP, as well as the shower video he produced. As the preliminary examination of GUERRERO-URIEL’s phone continued, agents located a video which depicted the molestation of a child. The defendant acknowledged producing the video. GUERRERO-URIEL acknowledge producing two videos which depicted the sexual molestation of Victim 1.
A complete forensic examination of the defendant’s phone, computer equipment, and media storage accounts uncovered at least 85 images and 29 videos depicting CP; however, these images and videos were not manufactured by the defendant. Based on the investigation, GUERRERO-URIEL manufactured CP by filming himself sexually molesting Victim 1, a 7-year-old child, while acting as the child’s baby sitter/guardian. Furthermore, GUERRERO-URIEL produced child pornography on at least three occasions and engaged in prohibited sexual acts with Victim 1 on at least two occasions.
The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Child Exploitation Task Force (FBICETF) in Raleigh and the Apex Police Department. The federal prosecution was handled by Assistant United States Attorney Ethan A. Ontjes.
RALEIGH, N.C. – A federal jury convicted a Mount Olive man on nine counts, including teaching another individual how to make and use an explosive knowing that the individual intended to use that instruction in the murder or attempted murder of federal law enforcement. The jury also found Christopher Arthur, 39, guilty of receiving and possessing unregistered devices including a short-barreled rifle, a silencer, three improvised hand grenades, and an improvised claymore. Finally, the jury found Arthur guilty of possessing a silencer with an obliterated serial number. U.S. District Court Judge James C. Dever, III, presided over the three-day trial.
According to court documents and other information presented in court, investigation into Arthur began due to events that occurred on May 27, 2020. On that date, in New York, after a two-hour police pursuit, another individual was shot and killed during an exchange of gunfire. Search warrants related to that event resulted in the location of numerous additional Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and firearms along with multiple “Tackleberry Solutions” tactical instructional manuals which named the author as Christopher Arthur. A review of the individual’s cell phone indicated that he had attended training with Arthur in Mount Olive for multiple days in March of 2020.
On March 19, 2021, a confidential source (CS) working with the FBI requested a free PDF document from Tackleberry Solutions. After a short period of time, an email was received from Arthur indicating that he had to keep parts of the information in the PDF off of the internet since explosives were such a touchy topic. Arthur also gave his phone number and mailing address. Arthur then began communicating via phone regarding the manuals and additional training at a cost.
On May 5, 2021, the CS attended training on explosives at Arthur’s Mount Olive home. During discussions between the CS and Arthur, the CS specifically informed Arthur that he needed such training because the ATF had visited his home and he expected them to return. Arthur introduced the CS to a concept Arthur called “the spiderweb” and which he described as a “freaking deathbox.” Over the course of a two and a half hour training, Arthur walked the individual through how to create IED’s and how to place them to create “fatal funnels” which could be used to maim or murder anyone entering the CS’s home. During that instruction, Arthur also showed the CS how to create an electric initiator for homemade grenades and bombs and how to make a homemade trip wire. Once he was finished demonstrating how to make the components, Arthur provided them to the CS and also explained how to use an old shotgun to create a “thumper” that could launch homemade grenades.
Subsequent to Arthur’s arrest, a search warrant was executed at his home. During the search, officers found an IED sitting on the front porch that was wired for a 9-volt battery powered switch located within the home. After rendering that item safe, a further search of the home uncovered three IED grenades in Arthur’s bedroom co-located with a striker plate intended to assist in detonating the IEDs. Also in Arthur’s bedroom was Palmetto State Armory PA-15 rifle chambered with 5.56 rounds and having an attached suppressor (i.e., “silencer”). Examination of the rifle revealed that it was an illegally altered short barrel rifle. Moreover, the suppressor lacked a visible serial number. Also located on the property was an IED made out of an old ammo can with a target on it, which contained 1 pound of a high explosive. None of the IEDs or firearms were registered with the National Firearm Registry and Transfer Record as required by law.
Arthur provided training materials to the CS in both PDF and video format. Within these, Arthur explained his belief for why such training was needed. For example, “When those [law enforcement officers] are trying to kick in your door, there’s no more peaceful negotiations. The time is over. That’s the time for you to start putting lead down range….that’s when you pick up that phone…to your fellow militia members and you say ‘I need help!’ And that’s when y’all man the freak up, get out there and put boots up their ass, lead down range, and bodies on the ground!”
When sentenced later this year, Arthur faces up to 95 years, including a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for providing the explosives training knowing how it was going to be used, 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each of the seven counts relating to possessing unregistered devices, and 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
Michael Easley, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after the jury returned the guilty verdict. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating this case and Assistant United States Attorneys Barbara Kocher and Logan Liles are prosecuting the case.
Related court documents and information are located on the website of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina or on PACER by searching for Case No.7:22-cr-00005-D.