Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-NY  1:20-cr-00202
Case Name:   USA v. Shader
  Press Releases:
Two indictments were returned yesterday in federal court in Central Islip, New York, charging Samantha Shader, and co-defendants Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman in connection with their alleged attempts to use improvised incendiary devices, commonly known as “Molotov Cocktails,” to damage and destroy New York City Police Department vehicles during protests this past month. 

The seven-count indictments each charge the defendants with the use of explosives, arson, use of explosives to commit a felony, arson conspiracy, use of a destructive device, civil disorder, and making or possessing a destructive device.

Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner, New York City Police Department (NYPD), announced the charges.

“Amid largely peaceful demonstrations taking place on the night of May 29, 2020, these defendants allegedly hurled Molotov Cocktails at NYPD vehicles without regard for the potentially deadly consequences,” stated United States Attorney Donoghue.  “Such criminal acts should never be confused with legitimate protest.  Those who carry out attacks on NYPD Officers or vehicles are not protesters, they are criminals, and they will be treated as such.”    

“A little more than a week after their arrests, Shader, Mattis, and Rahman have been charged with seven-count indictments in response to their potentially deadly attacks. Their criminal behavior risked lives, destroyed equipment that exists to serve the community, siphoned response resources, and created a threat to those who had every right to safely assemble and express their opinion,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney.  

“Violence, like that alleged here, not only endangers our NYPD officers but threatens the constitutional right of people to peacefully protest. These indictments by our federal partners reflect our joint condemnation of the kind of isolated acts a just society can never tolerate,” stated NYPD Commissioner Shea.

As detailed in court filings in the case against Mattis and Rahman, an NYPD surveillance camera recorded Rahman tossing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD vehicle parked near the 88th Precinct in the Fort Greene section of Brooklyn, then fleeing in a tan minivan.  Police Officers pursued the minivan and arrested Rahman and Mattis, who was the vehicle’s driver.  In the vehicle, the NYPD found several component items for Molotov Cocktails, including a lighter, a bottle filled with liquid suspected to be gasoline and toilet paper, additional bottles and toilet paper, and a gasoline canister.

As detailed in court filings in the case against Shader, a video recorded by a witness captured her igniting a Molotov cocktail and throwing it at an NYPD vehicle occupied by four police officers, shattering two of its windows.  Police officers pursued Shader as she attempted to flee and apprehended her at the scene. 

The charges in the indictments are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 

If convicted on all counts, the defendants face sentences of up to life imprisonment.

The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s National Security and Cybercrime Section.  Assistant United States Attorneys Ian C. Richardson and Jonathan Algor are in charge of the prosecution.

The Defendants:

COLINFORD MATTIS

Age:  32

Brooklyn, New York

UROOJ RAHMAN

Age:  31

Brooklyn, New York

E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 20-CR-203 (BMC)

SAMANTHA SHADER

Age:  27

Catskill, New York

E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 20-CR-202 (DLI)

 

Two criminal Complaints were filed Saturday evening in federal court in Brooklyn charging two women and a man with using and attempting to use improvised incendiary devices commonly known as “Molotov Cocktails” to damage and destroy New York City Police Department (NYPD) vehicles.  Defendants Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman, both residents of Brooklyn, were arrested in a van early Saturday morning while allegedly in possession of explosive device components shortly after Rahman hurled a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD vehicle before fleeing with Mattis.  A separate complaint charges Samantha Shader, a resident of Catskill, New York, who was arrested after allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at an NYPD vehicle occupied by four police officers.  The defendants charged in each of the complaints will make their initial appearances via teleconference on Monday, June 1, 2020, before United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold. 

Richard P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, William F. Sweeney, Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI), and Dermot F. Shea, Commissioner, NYPD, announced the arrests and charges.

“These defendants are charged with attacking the New York City Police Department while its Police Officers are risking their lives to protect the Constitutional rights of protesters and the safety of us all,” stated United States Attorney Donoghue.  “No rational human being can ever believe that hurling firebombs at Police Officers and vehicles is justified.  The Eastern District of New York will do everything in its power to protect those who protect us all, and we will ensure that criminals who use the camouflage of lawful protest to launch violent attacks against Police Officers face justice.” 

“When you conduct a violent attack that breaks federal law, the FBI New York office, along with our NYPD and Department of Justice partners, will move with speed to hold you accountable.  Behavior like the attacks charged here puts our entire community - protestors and first responders alike - in danger, and we will simply not allow it to go unaddressed.  The consequences for conducting this alleged attack, and any similar activity planned for the future, will be severe,” stated FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Sweeney. 

“Molotov Cocktails are violent tools of individuals looking to inflict harm and damage our city.  Crimes like these are devastating to their targets and also to the protestors and their right to free speech that police are working hard to protect.  It is reassuring that the U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn has taken this case.  I’m confident that the severest penalties under the law will be sought,” stated NYPD Commissioner Shea.

 As detailed in the complaint charging Mattis and Rahman, an NYPD surveillance camera recorded Rahman tossing a Molotov Cocktail at an unoccupied NYPD vehicle parked near the 88th Precinct in Brooklyn, New York and then fleeing in a tan minivan.  Officers pursued the minivan and arrested Rahman and Mattis, who was the vehicle’s driver.  The NYPD recovered several precursor items used to build Molotov Cocktails, including a lighter, a bottle filled with toilet paper and a liquid suspected to be gasoline in the vicinity of the passenger seat and a gasoline tank in the rear of the vehicle.

As detailed in the complaint charging Shader, a video recorded by a witness captured her igniting a Molotov Cocktail and throwing it at an NYPD vehicle occupied by four police officers, shattering two of its windows.  Police officers pursued Shader as she attempted to flee and apprehended her.  In a post-arrest statement, Shader later admitted to police that she had thrown the Molotov Cocktail at the NYPD vehicle.

The charges in the Complaints are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.  If convicted, each defendant faces a mandatory-minimum sentence of 5 years and up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

The government’s case is being handled by the Office’s National Security and Cybercrime Section.  Assistant United States Attorneys Ian C. Richardson and Jonathan Algor are in charge of the prosecution.

The Defendants:

COLINFORD MATTIS

Age:  32

Brooklyn, New York

UROOJ RAHMAN

Age:  31

Brooklyn, New York

SAMANTHA SHADER

Age:  27

Catskill, New York

 

 

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJyBrtdmQXjHZ1yIMlMn0wFTX0ceiFDAI5-G2kaZ2IQ
  Last Updated: 2024-04-16 01:48:52 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   ED-NY  1:20-mj-00402
Case Name:   USA v. Shader
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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