Score:   1
Docket Number:   ED-OK  6:19-cr-00073
Case Name:   USA v. Pacheco et al.
  Press Releases:
MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Oklahoma announced that Enrique Pacheco, age 30, of McAlester; Liliana Alvarez Soto, age 22, of Oklahoma City; Leroy Carl Fox, age 40, of McAlester; Matthew Scott Scraper, age 37, of McAlester; Alyssa Mae Syvongsa, age 19, of Tulsa; Shiana Nicole Johnson, age 24, of Ada; Feather Cheyenne Pacheco, age 23, of Tahlequah; Marc Anthony Cox, age 43, of Fort Gibson; Krystal Sue-Ann Mayen, age 30, of Oklahoma City; Kendall Brent Smith, age 50, of Okmulgee; Michael Sean Gunn, age 30, of Alma, Arkansas; Magdalena B. Mallard, age 34, of Fort Smith, Arkansas; Wesley Michael Rollins, age 31, of Tulsa;  Jamie Denise McDonald, age 30, of Tulsa; Kami Rai Gill, age 32, of Del City; Joel David Kazmierczak, age 46, of Broken Arrow; Alexandra Tristian Giemausaddle, age 31, of Anadarko; Trina Kay Rose, age 48, of Ada; Cheyenne Grace Alexus Tiger, age 22, of Oklahoma City; and Tina Marshall Stilwell, age 30, of Fort Gibson, were each indicted for Drug Conspiracy, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), punishable by not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to a $10,000,000 fine.

Muskogee residents Jose Miguel Pacheco, age 30; Maricsa Pacheco (Brown), age 29; Lannie Jo Carter, age 18; Daniel Pacheco, age 25; Teodoro Renteria Pacheco, age 55; Randy Eugene Langton, age 61; Tabitha Ann Bryant (Ford), age 37; Ervin Hernandez, age 31; and Christian Jonathan Hernandez, age 30, were also indicted for Drug Conspiracy. All 29 defendants are charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, with some of those defendants additionally charged with other crimes, including International Money Laundering, Money Laundering Conspiracy and Distribution or Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine, Heroin, and/or Cocaine.

The Indictment alleges that beginning on November 4, 2016 and continuing until on or about September 11, 2019, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma and elsewhere, the defendants willfully and knowingly combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed together, and with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit offenses against the United States.

The Indictment also alleges that on certain dates from July 16, 2019 through August 8, 2019, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the defendants Enrique Pacheco, Lannie Jo Carter, Shaina Nicole Johnson, Trina Kay Rose, Daniel Pacheco, Maricsa Pacheco and Tabitha Ann Bryant, transmitted, transferred and attempted to transmit and transfer funds, that is United States Currency, by wire transfer from a place in the United States to a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on of a specified unlawful activity, that is, the felonious importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in a controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(2)(A) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2, punishable by not more than 20 years imprisonment and a fine of the greater of $500,000.00 or two-times the amount of the transaction.  

The charges arose from a joint investigation led by the Drug Enforcement Administration, along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, the Muskogee County Sheriff’s Office, the Muskogee Police Department, and the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, many prominent agencies which are members of the DEA High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force (“HIDTA”), contributed to this investigation, including: the Tulsa Police Department, the Broken Arrow Police Department, the Chickasaw Nation Lighthorse Police Department, the Miami Police Department, the Moore Police Department, the El Reno Police Department,  the Yukon Police Department, the Duncan Police Department, the Norman Police Department, the Choctaw Police Department, the Edmond Police Department, the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office, the Canadian County Sheriff’s Office, the Rogers County District Attorney’s Office, and the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office. The investigation was coordinated by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (“OCDETF”) of the Eastern District of Oklahoma. OCDETF is an initiative led and coordinated by the Office of the United States Attorney.

United States Attorney Brian J. Kuester said, “Each year hundreds of people in Oklahoma die as a result of drug overdoses. Among the drugs contributing to these tragic deaths are methamphetamine and heroin. This operation, known as operation “Pop Can,” targeted an organization dealing those deadly drugs in the Eastern District and throughout Oklahoma.” Kuester added, “This investigation has been a shining example of how the public benefits when law enforcement agencies collaborate. The scope, duration, and success of this takedown would not have been possible without the participation of the agencies involved.”

“Operation Pop Can has thus far resulted in 25 arrests, and the seizure of over 30 pounds of meth and approximately 5 pounds of heroin. This investigation is yet another, where a contraband phone is smuggled into a DOC facility, and then utilized by an inmate to orchestrate criminal activity spanning across all three Oklahoma Federal Judicial Districts,” said DEA Assistant Special Agent in Charge John Scott. “The success in this case was a direct result of the collaboration between federal, state, and local agencies.   It was a combined effort of everyone involved bringing their respective resources together to go after this criminal organization.  There is no doubt that the takedown of this group will have a positive effect on our community.”

“The FBI works closely with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners to combat organized crime and illegal drug trafficking in Oklahoma. Today’s arrests are a reminder to those who prey on our communities - your criminal activity will not be tolerated and you will be brought to justice,” said Melissa Godbold, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Oklahoma City Division.

“The selling of illicit drugs in our communities negatively impacts nearly all aspects of our lives,” said Tamera Cantu, IRS Special Agent In Charge of the Dallas Field Office.  “This investigation involves drug traffickers laundering their profits through wire transfers to Mexico.  The role of IRS-Criminal Investigation in narcotics cases is to track down these profits and dismantle the drug trafficking organizations. Today’s indictments emphasize our commitment to this role as we work alongside our law enforcement partners to protect people’s security, health and wellbeing by bringing these criminals to justice.”

John Scully, Commissioner of the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety said, “Partnering with the Eastern District of the United States Attorney’s Office and our other law enforcement partners on this case, has resulted in multiple arrests and indictments.  Those arrests will certainly keep Oklahomans safer and will have a positive impact on the drug epidemic in our communities. These Drug Trafficking Organizations commit violent crimes in order to continue their criminal enterprise and the desire by those addicted, to obtain these illegal drugs drives them to commit related crimes as well.  Oklahomans should be proud of the coordinated response by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and these law enforcement agencies, to keep them safe.”           

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control Interim Director Bob Cook said, “It takes law enforcement in a cooperative effort with our federal, state and local partners to dismantle these groups that threaten the peace and safety of our communities.  OBN is committed in our mission to eradicate criminal drug organizations and fight to protect law abiding citizens.”

Muskogee County Sheriff Rob Frazier said, “Today’s search warrants and arrests represent the continued efforts of the Muskogee County Sheriff’s Office to combat illegal drugs and make Muskogee County a safer place for all. This office will continue our strong alliances with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to maximize our efforts against drug distributors in Muskogee County.”

“The Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office is proud to be part of this collaboration”, said Tulsa County Sheriff Vic Regalado. “These arrests are a perfect example of how our communities and the citizens of the Eastern District are safer, when local, state and federal authorities work together to take drug dealers off the streets.”

A grand jury Indictment does not constitute evidence of guilt.  A grand jury Indictment is a method of bringing formal charges against the defendant.  All defendants are presumed innocent of the charges and may not be found guilty unless evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

CourtListener:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16218233/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22370314/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371201/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371339/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371915/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372078/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22373198/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22373487/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22373544/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22370646/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371504/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372305/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371809/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22369797/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22370049/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371032/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371329/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371414/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371550/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22371690/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372062/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372198/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372313/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372648/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372700/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372904/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22372947/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22373097/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22374535/united-states-v-pacheco/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/22373871/united-states-v-pacheco/
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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