MACON, Ga. – The leader of a violent drug trafficking organization (DTO) who directed approximately 2,000 kilograms of cocaine from Mexico into the U.S.—much of which was distributed into the Middle District of Georgia—was sentenced to two life sentences in prison for his crimes today.
Albert Ross aka “Big,” 53, of Stone Mountain, Georgia, was sentenced to serve the statutory maximum of life imprisonment for each count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana for which he pleaded guilty on Jan. 22. In addition, Ross was ordered to serve five years of supervised release and pay a $1 million fine by U.S. District Judge Tilman “Tripp” Self III on June 10. There is no parole in the federal system.
“Keeping our communities safe is our office’s highest priority,” said U.S. Attorney Peter D. Leary. “These life sentences for Albert Ross help to accomplish this goal, thanks to the incredible dedication and courage displayed by our law enforcement partners at the federal, state and local level to shut down this violent drug trafficking organization and hold its leader accountable.”
“Albert Ross deserves every day in prison that he has been sentenced after distributing such a huge amount of drugs into Middle Georgia,” said FBI Atlanta’s Macon Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Robert Gibbs. “FBI Atlanta and our partners across the state will continue to work non-stop to put drug dealers behind bars and stop them from inflicting pain and violence in our communities.”
“The guns, drugs and violence are unfortunately all too common tools of drug traffickers,” said Robert J. Murphy, the Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Atlanta Division. “Today’s announcement demonstrates DEA’s emphatic commitment to attacking the drug dealers responsible for the devastation in our communities.”
“Cases like this exemplify the value of partnerships between local, state and federal agencies,” said Athens-Clarke County Police Chief Jerry Saulters. “The volume of dangerous drugs, not to mention the firearms and acts of violence, impact our communities beyond comprehension. The sentence in this case should be a stern message to the traffickers who bring their poison into our community and threaten the livelihood of our residents.”
According to the stipulation of fact read in court and other documents, Ross admitted that he was the leader of a large-scale drug trafficking organization, which was responsible for importing approximately 2,000 kilograms of cocaine into the U.S. from Mexico, along with other illegal drugs. Large amounts of cocaine was distributed by Ross’s DTO into the Middle District of Georgia. The FBI-Athens Resident Agency initiated a long-term investigation focused primarily on Ross’s cocaine distribution activities. Through the use of many investigative techniques including wiretaps, physical surveillance, vehicle trackers and confidential informants, agents identified a network of individuals associated with Ross’s DTO.
Working with co-conspirators, investigators discovered that Ross directed individuals to transport large quantities of cocaine from Texas to be distributed to Ross’s customers and associates. Ross’s DTO was supplied cocaine by a source in Mexico affiliated with the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG). Money for the cocaine purchases was given to couriers in Atlanta who would then deliver the money to Ross’s cocaine supplier in Mexico.
Agents learned that Ross and co-conspirators flew to Mexico City in August 2019 to meet with Ross’s CJNG cocaine supplier and his cartel boss to negotiate a deal where they would supply Ross’s DTO with 200 additional kilograms of cocaine per month. A text string found on Ross’s seized iPhone detailed that in under a one-month period between March 14 and April 4, 2020, Ross was supplied with 112 kilograms of cocaine. During the same period, Ross sent more than $2.5 million in payment for the drugs to his cocaine source in Mexico. Additional evidence revealed that in a three-month period in 2018, Ross received 1,300 kilograms of cocaine from a different Mexican supplier. Once the cocaine arrived in the Atlanta area, Ross stashed the dope at an elderly family member’s home, who had previously been shot picking up drug proceeds at Ross’s direction.
Co-defendants Lonnie Bennett, 44, of Atlanta, and Brandon Payne, 30, of Atlanta, sold cocaine supplied by Ross out of their stash house on Pittman Road in College Park, Georgia. Co-defendant TaMichael Darden, 43, of Athens, Georgia, made over twenty trips from Athens to the Pittman Road stash house to purchase cocaine that he later sold throughout the Middle District of Georgia.
Ross is tied to past large drug seizures in Georgia. In March 2018, Ross and his business partner purchased approximately $4 million of cocaine for transport from Texas to Georgia; a tractor trailer was stopped on I-20 by a Georgia trooper, who found 152 kilograms of cocaine in a false wall inside the transport truck. Following the cocaine seizure, Ross asked another co-conspirator to kill the person responsible for overseeing the intercepted drug load. The co-conspirator refused the murder order. In Dec. 2018, DEA agents received information from a confidential source that Ross was moving a large amount of cash from illegal drug sales from Atlanta to California using private aircraft. Agents observed men leave Ross’s Bouldercrest Road stash house and board a plane at Peachtree Dekalb Airport with four suitcases and two backpacks. DEA and FBI agents in California were waiting and seized more than $2 million in drug proceeds from the luggage.
In addition, Ross tasked co-conspirators with transporting and distributing large shipments of marijuana from “Murder Mountain,” a region in HumboldtCounty, California, known for its marijuana production. For example, 24,000 pounds of marijuana was shipped over eight trips from California to Georgia as directed by Ross. Significant amounts were distributed to dealers in the Middle District of Georgia, including co-defendant Reginald Battle, Sr., 49, of Statham, Georgia.
Ross was ultimately arrested on Sept. 23, 2021, at his home in Stone Mountain. Agents found more than $300,000 in cash wrapped in tinfoil and vacuum sealed in black trash bags inside Ross’s bedroom closet. Inside an Atlanta area bar owned by Ross, agents seized more than $600,000 in drug proceeds. As part of this entire investigation, law enforcement seized $3,164,210 cash, 73 firearms, 165.22 kilos of cocaine, 1.32 kilograms of fentanyl, 11.25 ounces of heroin, 1.39 kilograms of crack cocaine, 12.57 lbs. of crystal methamphetamine, 25.35 lbs. of marijuana and 198 dosage units of controlled pharmaceuticals. Ross admits his DTO is responsible for importing approximately 2,000 kilograms of cocaine from Mexico into the U.S. for distribution in Georgia. Ross has a prior felony drug conviction in Fulton County, Georgia, Superior Court and numerous felony arrests for drug trafficking.
This effort is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) operation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven multi-agency approach. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF.
The case was investigated by FBI Atlanta – Athens RA Middle Georgia Safe Streets Gang Task Force, DEA, Athens-Clarke County Police Department, Northeast Georgia Regional Drug Task Force, GBI, Georgia Department of Community Supervision, Georgia Department of Corrections, Georgia Department of Revenue, Georgia State Patrol, Forsyth County Sheriff's Office, Fulton County Sheriff’s Office, Gwinnett County Police Department, Oconee County Sheriff’s Office, Oglethorpe County Sheriff's Office, Rockdale County Sheriff's Office, Atlanta Police Department, Brookhaven Police Department, Cobb County Police Department, DeKalb County Police Department, Henry County Police Department, Marietta Police Department and South Fulton Police Department.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Mike Morrison and Tamara Jarrett prosecuted the case for the Government.
SAN JOSE – A federal district court judge approved a settlement resolving alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act in and around the Van Duzen River by HumboldtCounty landowner, Jack Noble. The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Alex G. Tse, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resource Division (ENRD) Jeffrey H. Wood, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Michael Stoker, and Assistant Director for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries West Coast Division Office of Law Enforcement Greg Busch.
The settlement, approved by U.S. District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong on Monday, August 27, 2018, includes a consent decree pursuant to which Noble will remove concrete and other debris that he dumped into the Van Duzen River in an attempt to armor the river’s banks. Noble also will create woody alcoves in the river for fish habitat and revegetate the banks to restore the river. Under the decree, Noble also will pay a $10,000 civil penalty and is enjoined from additional work in the Van Duzen without first obtaining a clearance from relevant federal agencies.
The Clean Water Act requires any person who plans to discharge fill in any portion of rivers (or other waters of the United States) to obtain a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers or authorized state. Further, the Endangered Species Act protects listed species and prohibits killing listed species, injuring them, or significantly modifying or degrading their habitat. In this case, Noble placed fill and other pollutants in sections of the Van Duzen River, a designated Wild and Scenic River that serves as habitat to protected coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout. He did so without obtaining a permit and despite warnings from state and federal officials. These activities altered the reach of the river, had an adverse impact on critical fish spawning areas, and otherwise crushed or stranded fish.
“The federal law has been crafted to protect certain areas from unpermitted construction and dumping,” said U.S. Attorney Alex G. Tse. “Today’s settlement would ensure that this critical habitat in HumboldtCounty will be restored to the condition it was before pollutants were introduced in and around the Van Duzen River. We will continue to use the resources of this office to ensure that federal laws are enforced for the protection of our environment.”
“The Van Duzen River is not only a place for recreation, but also serves as an important water supply for the communities of HumboldtCounty, California,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Wood for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resource Division. “Today’s settlement shows that the Justice Department will continue to work closely with its partners at the federal, state and local level to ensure the longevity of our natural resources and make sure that companies, as well as individuals, comply with the Clean Water Act.”
“Today’s settlement will help restore one of California’s Wild and Scenic Rivers and enhance habitat for salmon,” said Regional Administrator Mike Stoker with the EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region. “EPA looks forward to continuing to work with our local, state and federal partners to monitor the restoration work’s success.”
“NOAA is committed to enforcing regulations for the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species,” said Greg Busch, Assistant Director for NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement, West Coast Division. “This case is an excellent example of how state and federal agencies work together to reduce the harmful effect of human activities on protected species and their habitats.”
This litigation was handled jointly by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Pyle of the Northern District of California and Trial Attorneys John Thomas Do, Simi Bhat, and Andrea Gelatt of the Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division. The resolution of this case is the result of a joint effort by EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA who are often aided by their state counterparts as well as groups and individuals who report suspected violations. This matter was brought to the attention of the federal agencies by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and members of the public.
MEDFORD, Ore.—On May 17, 2022, a HumboldtCounty, California man was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for the armed kidnapping of three adult victims, including a former dating partner, and illegally possessing a stolen firearm as a convicted felon.
George Gene Rose, 45, was sentenced to 300 months in federal prison and five years’ supervised release.
“Mr. Rose’s callous and terrifying kidnapping of his former partner and two other adult victims warrant the lengthy prison sentence imposed today. We hope this sentence will bring some measure of peace and closure for these victims after this harrowing ordeal,” said Scott Erik Asphaug, U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.
“The physical and emotional toll Mr. Rose subjected his victims to cannot be undone; however, our hope is that today’s sentence begins the healing process for these victims. His actions were cold-blooded and egregious and physical and emotional violence of this kind will not be tolerated,” said Kieran L. Ramsey, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Oregon.
According to court documents, on August 3, 2020, Rose entered the apartment of his first victim, a former dating partner, and waited for them to return home from work. Once inside, he stole a shotgun and several shotgun shells belonging to the victim’s landlord. When the victim returned home with a roommate, Rose confronted both individuals and ordered them to the ground at gunpoint. He bound both by their hands and feet and placed duct tape over their mouths and faces. Rose located a third victim in an adjacent bedroom and tied them up in a similar manner at gunpoint. When the third victim tried to break free of the binding, Rose struck them in the head with the butt of the stolen shotgun.
Rose then forced all three victims into a stolen pickup truck and fled. Several hours later, he released his second and third victims in a rural area of Northern California and told them to seek help from a house located two miles away. Rose continued driving north toward Oregon, while his first victim faded in and out of consciousness. Near Talent, Oregon, Rose abandoned the truck and led his first victim, who was not wearing shoes, through a densely wooded area. He repeatedly voiced his intention to kill the victim and himself.
Three days after the kidnapping, Rose’s victim convinced him to turn himself in. Rose eventually allowed the victim to knock on the door of a nearby residence and negotiate the terms of his surrender to police. Rose was arrested in possession of the stolen shotgun and more than two dozen shotgun shells.
On May 20, 2021, a federal grand jury in Medford returned a two-count indictment charging Rose with kidnapping and illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On September 27, 2021, he pleaded guilty to both charges.
U.S. Attorney Asphaug and Special Agent in Charge Ramsey made the announcement.
This case was investigated by the FBI with assistance from the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office, HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office, and the HumboldtCounty District Attorney’s Office. It was prosecuted by John C. Brassell, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.
Domestic violence involving a current or former partner is a serious crime that includes both physical and emotional abuse. Sometimes these crimes are hidden from public view with survivors suffering in silence, afraid to seek help or not knowing where to turn. The traumatic effects of domestic violence also extend beyond the abused person, impacting family members and communities.
If you or someone you know are in immediate danger, please call 911.
If you need assistance or know someone who needs help, please contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline by calling 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) or texting “START” to 88788. Many communities throughout the country have also developed support networks to assist survivors in the process of recovery.
ALBANY, NEW YORK – Jonathan M. Cuney, age 38, and a part-time resident of East Greenbush, New York, pled guilty today to unlawfully possessing firearms including “ghost guns,” and ammunition, and admitted to maintaining large collections of firearms and ammunition in East Greenbush and HumboldtCounty, California.
The announcement was made by Acting United States Attorney Antoinette T. Bacon and John B. DeVito, Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF).
Cuney pled guilty to unlawfully possessing, as a felon, a Springfield Armory rifle and an FMK Firearms Inc. AR-15-style rifle receiver/frame, and to possessing three unregistered silencers, between September 9, 2019 and November 14, 2019.
Cuney has a prior conviction for unlawful gun trafficking. In December 2015, he pled guilty, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to transporting and selling firearms with obliterated serial numbers while he was a licensed firearms dealer. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison, and returned to East Greenbush in April 2017 upon his release from prison.
Acting United States Attorney Antoinette T. Bacon stated: “Today’s guilty plea is the result of a cross-country investigation that took a dangerous person off the streets. Jonathan Cuney has a prior conviction for selling untraceable firearms. After his release from prison, he built ghost guns and acquired other firearms, and maintained large caches of firearms and ammunition in New York and California. I commend the ATF for investigating Cuney as he travelled across the United States, and for quickly arresting him and removing this threat to our communities.”
ATF Special Agent in Charge John B. DeVito stated: “Jonathan Cuney’s criminal record makes it abundantly clear that he is a danger to the community. This case is the product of a concerted, collaborative effort across multiple ATF jurisdictions to identify and stop the sale of illegal firearms. We will always be committed to removing armed criminals from our communities who threaten the safety of our citizens.”
In pleading guilty today, Cuney also admitted that from at least August 2018 until November 12, 2019, he purchased firearms parts from several dozen online retailers, and had these items shipped to East Greenbush; Willits, California (where he maintained a residence); and Providence, Rhode Island (where he formerly maintained a legitimate firearms business). Cuney then used these firearms parts to manufacture non-serialized handguns, rifles, and silencers. These firearms are often called “ghost guns” because they do not have serial numbers, making them more difficult for law enforcement to trace.
ATF searched Cuney’s East Greenbush storage unit on November 14, 2019, and found it to contain, among other items:
Two (2) rifles,
One (1) revolver,
Four (4) serialized AR-15-style rifle receivers/frames,
Two (2) completed “ghost guns,”
Five (5) pistol parts kits,
Two (2) completed silencers and enough parts to build more than ten (10) silencers,
An assorted quantity of firearm parts and accessories, of which five (5) are classified as machineguns under federal law, and
3,250 rounds of assorted rifle and pistol ammunition.
Cuney also rented a storage unit in Redway, California. ATF searched this storage unit on November 20, 2019, and found it to contain, among other items:
Two (2) Glock pistols,
Seven (7) additional handguns,
Three (3) rifles,
One (1) shotgun,
Five (5) machinegun conversion kits,
More than ten (10) silencers, and
More than 1,000 rounds of assorted rifle and handgun ammunition.
Today, Cuney also pled guilty to unlawfully possessing, on September 17, 2019, in Columbia, Missouri, several thousand rounds of ammunition that he purchased at a firearms store through a straw purchaser.
He also pled guilty to unlawfully possessing, on November 12, 2019, near Tucson, Arizona, a pistol and a rifle, which were discovered during a traffic stop of a vehicle that Cuney was driving.
Cuney pled guilty to these additional federal charges, in Albany federal court, with the consent of the Acting United States Attorneys for the District of Arizona and the Western District of Missouri, respectively.
Cuney has been in custody since November 12, 2019. He faces up to 10 years in prison, and up to 3 years of post-imprisonment supervised release, when Senior United States District Judge Frederick J. Scullin sentences him on October 19, 2021. A defendant’s sentence is imposed by a judge based on the particular statute the defendant is charged with violating, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other factors.
As part of his plea agreement, Cuney also agreed to abandon a variety of firearms, silencers, ammunition, and firearm parts found in both East Greenbush and Redway, California, as well as the following items, all found in Redway: one pair of handcuffs with key; 56 Monadnock disposable single cuffs; and clothing items, patches and badges bearing law enforcement acronyms and insignia, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ball cap, FBI badges, FBI patches, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) patches, and DEA badges.
These cases were investigated by the ATF New York Field Division, with assistance from ATF Special Agents and Task Force Officers in Arizona, California, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. The California Highway Patrol also assisted in the investigation.
The New York case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Barnett.
The Arizona case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Serra M. Tsethlikai of the District of Arizona.
The Missouri case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael S. Oliver of the Western District of Missouri.
ALBANY, NEW YORK – Jonathan M. Cuney, age 38, and a part-time resident of East Greenbush, New York, was sentenced today to 87 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release, for unlawfully possessing firearms including “ghost guns,” and ammunition.
The announcement was made by United States Attorney Carla B. Freedman and John B. DeVito, Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF).
Cuney previously pled guilty to unlawfully possessing, as a felon, a Springfield Armory rifle and an FMK Firearms Inc. AR-15-style rifle receiver/frame, and to possessing three unregistered silencers, between September 9, 2019 and November 14, 2019.
Cuney has a prior conviction for unlawful gun trafficking. In December 2015, he pled guilty, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to transporting and selling firearms with obliterated serial numbers while he was a licensed firearms dealer. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison, and returned to East Greenbush in April 2017 upon his release from prison.
In pleading guilty on June 22, 2021, Cuney also admitted that from at least August 2018 until November 12, 2019, he purchased firearms parts from several dozen online retailers, and had these items shipped to East Greenbush; Willits, California (where he maintained a residence); and Providence, Rhode Island (where he formerly maintained a legitimate firearms business). Cuney then used these firearms parts to manufacture non-serialized handguns and rifles, and silencers. These firearms are often called “ghost guns” because they do not have serial numbers, making them more difficult for law enforcement to track.
ATF searched Cuney’s East Greenbush storage unit on November 14, 2019, and found it to contain, among other items:
Two (2) rifles,
One (1) revolver,
Four (4) serialized AR-15-style rifle receivers/frames,
Two (2) completed “ghost” guns,
Five (5) pistol parts kits,
Two (2) completed silencers and enough parts to build more than ten (10) silencers, and
An assorted quantity of firearm parts and accessories – of which five (5) would be classified as machine guns under federal law – and 3,250 rounds of assorted rifle and pistol ammunition.
Cuney also rented a storage unit in Redway, HumboldtCounty, California. ATF searched this storage unit on November 20, 2019, and found it to contain, among other items:
Two (2) Glock pistols,
Seven (7) additional handguns,
Three (3) rifles,
One (1) shotgun,
Five (5) machinegun conversion kits,
More than ten (10) silencers, and
More than 1,000 rounds of assorted rifle and handgun ammunition.
Cuney also admitted to unlawfully possessing, on September 17, 2019, in Columbia, Missouri, several thousand rounds of ammunition that he purchased at a firearms store through a straw purchaser.
He also admitted to unlawfully possessing, on November 12, 2019, near Tucson, Arizona, a pistol and a rifle, which were discovered during a traffic stop of a vehicle that Cuney was driving.
Cuney has also admitted to joining the Proud Boys organization in late 2018.
In sentencing Cuney, Senior United States District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. noted that “ghost guns are killing people on the streets every day in this country.”
Judge Scullin noted Cuney’s prior service in the United States Marine Corps, including a combat deployment to Iraq, but said that “any credit you might get for being a veteran is outweighed by your conduct as a criminal. You know how to play the system. You tell a good story – an ‘A’ for creating writing, but an ‘F’ for conduct.”
As part of his plea agreement, Cuney agreed to abandon a variety of firearms, silencers, ammunition, and firearm parts found in both East Greenbush and Redway, California, as well as the following items, all found in Redway: one pair of handcuffs with key; 56 Monadnock disposable single cuffs; and clothing items, patches and badges bearing law enforcement acronyms and insignia, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ball cap, FBI badges, FBI patches, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) patches, and DEA badges.
These cases were investigated by the ATF New York Field Division, with assistance from ATF Special Agents and Task Force Officers in Arizona, California, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. The California Highway Patrol also assisted in the investigation.
The New York case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Barnett.
The Arizona case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Serra M. Tsethlikai of the District of Arizona.
The Missouri case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael S. Oliver of the Western District of Missouri.
San FRANCISCO – Deryl Craig Morse appeared in United States District Court today to face a federal indictment charging him with being a felon who possessed a loaded firearm and also charging him with possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, announced Acting United States Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Craig D. Fair.
The indictment alleges that Morse, who is 58 years old and resides in McKinleyville, California, is a convicted felon who on March 10, 2021, possessed a Ruger .357 caliber revolver loaded with six rounds of .357 ammunition. A forfeiture allegation in the indictment asserts the loaded revolver was recovered from Morse’s residence along with more than 50 additional rounds of ammunition. Morse is also charged with possessing on the same date 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute it.
Morse made his initial appearance in federal court today before United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Morse is out of custody on condition of location monitoring. His next appearance is scheduled for July 14, 2021, for an initial appearance before United States District Judge James Donato.
The indictment charges Morse with possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii). If convicted, Morse faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison and a maximum sentence of 20 years, with a maximum fine of $5,000,000. The indictment also charges Morse with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). If convicted of this charge, Morse faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the Court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ankur Shingal is the Assistant U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Daniel Fuentes and Madeline Wachs. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI and the HumboldtCounty Drug Task Force.
SAN FRANCISCO – William Wood has been sentenced to 120 months in prison following his conviction on a charge of possession of child pornography, announced United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent in Charge Robert K. Tripp. The sentence was imposed by the Hon. Trina L. Thompson, United States District Judge, on May 17, 2024.
Wood, 62, of Eureka, California, pleaded guilty in October 2023 to one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). He was originally indicted on that charge by a federal grand jury in December 2022.
According to the government’s sentencing memorandum, the defendant possessed more than 300 images and videos depicting child pornography on his electronic devices, including approximately 24 images depicting infants or toddlers and hundreds more depicting prepubescent children. The government further argued in its sentencing papers that the defendant used social media to send child pornography to another individual, including images depicting infants or toddlers and prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
In addition to sentencing Wood to prison, Judge Thompson ordered the defendant to serve five years of supervised release to begin after his prison term is completed and to pay $35,000 in restitution.
Assistant United States Attorney Kelsey Davidson is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Sara Slattery. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI, with assistance from the HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office.
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal jury has convicted three defendants—Luis Torres Garcia, Evan Martinez Diaz, and Timothy Peoples—of multiple drug trafficking offenses following an eight-day trial, announced United States Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), San Francisco Field Division, Special Agent in Charge Brian M. Clark. The jury convicted the defendants on all counts, rendering its verdict on February 14, 2024, after deliberating for two hours. The verdict followed a trial before the Hon. Richard Seeborg, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California.
The evidence at trial included calls intercepted between April 2018 and February 2019 as part of a federal wiretap investigation into two drug suppliers in the East Bay. The intercepted calls established, among other things, that both suppliers received drugs from sources in Mexico. At trial, the government also presented evidence of several significant drug seizures including: 8.8 pounds of fentanyl and heroin in May 2018, valued at as much as $1.1 million, according to uncontested evidence at trial; 18 pounds of methamphetamine in August 2018; and 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine in February 2019. The evidence at trial also established that law enforcement seized more than $300,000 in drug-related cash over the course of the investigation.
Torres Garcia, 38, of Rio Dell, California, was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The evidence at trial showed that Torres Garcia was a HumboldtCounty drug trafficker, who used the nickname “Guero.” Torres Garcia received methamphetamine shipments on credit from a Fairfield, California-based drug supplier. On August 8, 2018, the Fairfield supplier attempted to send about 18 pounds of methamphetamine—valued at $158,000—to Torres Garcia in HumboldtCounty. DEA agents and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office intercepted the drug courier and seized the drugs during a vehicle stop on Highway 101 near Healdsburg, California. In February 2019, the DEA tracked Torres Garcia to a meeting in Windsor, California, where Torres Garcia delivered about $13,800 in cash to a courier for his drug supplier. Although he was present throughout the trial and listened to closing arguments, Torres Garcia absconded before the jury handed down its verdict; he is now a fugitive.
Martinez Diaz, 31, of Bay Point, California, was charged with three counts—conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). The evidence at trial established, among other things, that on February 9, 2019, Martinez Diaz was transporting about 20 pounds of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine through a residential neighborhood in Antioch, California, when he realized he was being followed by law enforcement—which knew about the drugs through intercepted calls. Martinez Diaz began driving erratically, briefly evading law enforcement and directing a co-conspirator to discard the drugs he was carrying in the bushes on a residential street. A short time later law enforcement located the drugs, which evidence at trial established had street retail values of $177,860 (methamphetamine) and $40,000 (cocaine). After Martinez Diaz was stopped by police and released with a traffic citation, he was intercepted on a call telling his supplier that he had seen law enforcement and discarded the drugs to avoid arrest.
Peoples, 44, of Antioch, California, was arrested after law enforcement officers found cocaine in his home, and charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)–(C). Evidence presented at trial showed that Peoples was a regular customer of an Antioch-based cocaine wholesaler from whom he bought some 10.5 pounds of cocaine for more than $120,000 in a 90-day period. Peoples used the codeword “babies” to refer to ounce quantities of cocaine. The evidence at trial established that Peoples then sold cocaine to his own customers in smaller quantities and used his proceeds to buy expensive cars.
Judge Seeborg scheduled a sentencing hearing for June 11, 2024. Torres Garcia faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Martinez Diaz and Peoples each face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for every count on which they were convicted. However, the defendants’ sentences will be imposed only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Pastor and Joseph Tartakovsky prosecuted the case with the assistance of Erick Machado. This prosecution is the result of an investigation led by the DEA Oakland Resident Office, with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Homeland Security Investigations; U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the police departments in Fairfield, Antioch, Concord, and Oakland; the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office; and the California Highway Patrol.
SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. Attorney David L. Anderson today announced that counties and cities throughout the Northern District of California have been allocated a total or more than $7 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Justice to respond to the public safety challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Justice awarded the grants through the Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding program, which was authorized by recent federal stimulus legislation.
“First responders continue to work hard to keep the public safe at this time,” said U.S. Attorney Anderson. “They deserve not just our admiration and appreciation, but also our support. We are pleased to announce this funding to assist law enforcement and public safety efforts throughout our district.”
“The outbreak of COVID-19 and the public health emergency it created are sobering reminders that even the most routine duties performed by our nation’s public safety officials carry potentially grave risks,” said Katharine T. Sullivan, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. “These funds will provide hard-hit communities with critical resources to help mitigate the impact of this crisis and give added protection to the brave professionals charged with keeping citizens safe.”
The law gives jurisdictions considerable latitude in the use of these funds for dealing with COVID-19. Potential uses include hiring personnel, paying overtime, purchasing protective equipment, distributing resources to hard-hit areas and addressing inmates’ medical needs.
Agencies that were eligible for the fiscal year 2019 State and Local Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program are candidates for the emergency funding. Local units of government and tribes will receive direct awards separately according to their jurisdictions’ allocations. Information on how to apply for grants is available at https://bja.ojp.gov/funding/opportunities/bja-2020-18553.
California counties and municipalities throughout the Northern District received grants through the program:
Jurisdiction Name
Grant Allocation
ALAMEDA CITY
$41,660
ALAMEDA COUNTY
$133,882
ANTIOCH CITY
$161,353
BERKELEY CITY
$135,693
CONCORD CITY
$105,655
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
$82,337
DALY CITY
$56,072
EAST PALO ALTO CITY
$32,226
EMERYVILLE CITY
$32,903
EUREKA CITY
$50,185
FREMONT CITY
$89,657
GILROY CITY
$43,922
HAYWARD CITY
$132,068
HUMBOLDTCOUNTY
$60,602
LAKE COUNTY
$45,281
LIVERMORE CITY
$43,242
MARIN COUNTY
$58,008
MENDOCINO COUNTY
$69,733
MONTEREY COUNTY
$58,337
MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY
$33,660
NAPA CITY
$65,354
NAPA COUNTY
$58,008
OAKLAND CITY
$1,330,582
PETALUMA CITY
$51,091
PITTSBURG CITY
$63,695
REDWOOD CITY
$42,488
RICHMOND CITY
$221,800
ROHNERT PARK CITY
$47,469
SALINAS CITY
$235,764
SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY
$1,449,067
SAN JOSE CITY
$865,998
SAN LEANDRO CITY
$107,391
SAN MATEO CITY
$58,562
SAN MATEO COUNTY
$70,864
SAN PABLO CITY
$46,867
SAN RAFAEL CITY
$51,242
SANTA CLARA CITY
$39,923
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
$70,261
SANTA CRUZ CITY
$107,845
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
$65,506
SANTA ROSA CITY
$149,879
SONOMA COUNTY
$140,146
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY
$40,751
SUNNYVALE CITY
$37,584
UNION CITY
$60,450
WATSONVILLE CITY
$63,318
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), directed by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Katharine T. Sullivan, provides federal leadership, grants, training, technical assistance and other resources to improve the nation’s capacity to prevent and reduce crime, assist victims and enhance the rule of law by strengthening the criminal and juvenile justice systems. More information about OJP and its components can be found at www.ojp.gov.
SAN FRANCISCO – Thirteen defendants were indicted on narcotics trafficking charges, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent in Charge Chris D. Nielsen. The indictment follows the arrest of five of the defendants on April 30, 2019, and the execution of search warrants at thirteen locations, including nine residences in Contra Costa County, HumboldtCounty, Fairfield, Suisun City and Modesto.
All thirteen defendants were charged in a single indictment which charges controlled substance offenses involving methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, cocaine and cocaine base. The defendants and the charges pending against them are as follows:
Defendant
Age
Residence
Charges
Maximum Statutory Penalty
LORENZO LEE, a/k/a “O.G.”
66
Antioch, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
Distribution of and Possession with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances, Including Cocaine, Cocaine Base, Methamphetamine, and Heroin (Counts 4, 7, and 13-15)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
JEFFREY MCCOY
46
Pittsburg, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
Distribution of Controlled Substances, Including Cocaine Base, Cocaine, and Heroin (Counts 2-7 and 9)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
ANTHONY BROWN, a/k/a “Ant Man”
57
Bay Point, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
Distribution of Cocaine Base
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 7)
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
DESHAWNTE GAMBOA
38
Pittsburg, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
Distribution of Heroin (Count 9)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
DEBORAH POLK
63
Antioch, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin (Count 15)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
Maintaining a Drug-Involved Premises (Count 16)
21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2)
20 years imprisonment
3 years supervised release
$500,000 fine
EVAN MARTINEZ-DIAZ
26
Bay Point, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
Possession with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine and Cocaine (Counts 13 and 14)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
MAGO AGUILAR-PACHECO
38
West Covina, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
CESAR ALVARADO
38
Desert Springs, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 1)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, Heroin, and Methamphetamine (Counts 11-14)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
JESSE LOPEZ, III
30
Fowler, California
Possession with Intent to Distribute Fentanyl (Count 8)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
JOSE DELGADILLO, a/k/a “Tepa”
41
Fairfield, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Counts 1 and 10)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
MARCO DELGADILLO, a/k/a “Tonio”
39
Fairfield, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 10)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
LUIS TORRES-GARCIA, a/k/a “Guero”
33
Rio Dell, California
Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances (Count 10)
21 U.S.C. § 846
Not less than 10 years imprisonment and up to life
Not less than 5 years supervised release and up to life
$10 million fine
TIMOTHY PEOPLES, a/k/a “Tee”
40
Antioch, California
Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine and Cocaine Base (Counts 17 and 18)
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
Not less than 5 years imprisonment and up to 40 years imprisonment
Not less than 4 years supervised release and up to life
$5 million fine
The defendants arrested on April 30, 2019, were originally charged by complaint. The complaints have been unsealed. Eight defendants were charged in complaints that were supported by an affidavit describing the underlying investigation (the Affidavit). In addition, a separate complaint was filed against defendant Timothy Peoples, and that complaint has been unsealed as well.
According to the Affidavit, this investigation started in 2017 and involved the DEA, the United States Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Antioch Police Department, Oakley Police Department, and Concord Police Department. In 2017 and 2018, the investigators used informants to conduct a series of purchases of cocaine, cocaine base and heroin from JEFFREY MCCOY. In furtherance of their investigation, the agents also obtained federal wiretap orders in 2018 and 2019 to monitor communications over telephones used by the conspirators.
According to the Affidavit, the agents also seized significant quantities of narcotics from various defendants during the investigation. The following chart summarizes the seizures, which are discussed in more detail in the Affidavit:
DATE
SEIZED
CIRCUMSTANCES
5/15/2018
4 kg of heroin mixed with fentanyl and $46,000
Seized from courier after leaving LEE’s residence
8/8/2018
18 lbs of methamphetamine
Seized en route to TORRES-GARCIA from Jose DELGADILLO
1/26/2019
2 kg of cocaine
Seized en route to meeting point with LEE
2/9/2019
7 kg of narcotics and $104,505
Seized from courier after leaving LEE’s residence
2/9/2019
20 lbs of methamphetamine and 1 kg of cocaine
Discarded from courier’s vehicle after leaving LEE’s residence
In addition, any sentence following conviction will be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
This case was investigated and prosecuted by member agencies of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, a focused multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional task force investigating and prosecuting the most significant drug trafficking organizations throughout the United States by leveraging the combined expertise of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
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
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
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 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
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
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 type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
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
Case Name: USA v. Approximately $198,729.00 in United States Currency Currently in the Custody of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department in Eureka California
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
United States Attorney Matthew D. Krueger announced today that the following ten defendants have been charged in federal court with offenses related to nationwide conspiracies to distribute marijuana and commit money laundering:
Name
Age
Residence
Robert K. Malkin
62
Oxnard, CA
Seth C. Jacobs
28
Alexandria, VA
Lev B. Reys
38
Valley Village, CA
Jason J. Malkin
31
Los Angeles, CA
Mohammed E. Omar
35
Springfield, VA
Alae Arbi
28
Alexandria, VA
Nahom Hagos
29
Alexandria, VA
Fredric H. Birault
85
Valencia, CA
Lachelle Cook
31
Milwaukee, WI
The defendants currently reside in Milwaukee, Virginia, and California. This case is a part of a long-term nationwide federal drug and money laundering investigation.
The defendants are charged with drug and money laundering offenses, including: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. If proven that the drug conspiracy involved in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana, the defendants charged with drug offenses will face up to forty (40) years in prison, with a mandatory minimum sentence of five (5) years in prison. The defendants charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering face up to twenty (20) years in prison.
Last week law enforcement officers arrested nine of the above defendants. Seth C. Jacobs remains at large. In addition to last week’s arrests, law enforcement officers executed two (2) federal search warrants in Milwaukee, eleven (11 ) search warrants in Virginia, ten (10) search warrants in California, and one search warrant in Washington, D.C., targeting members of this organization. Law enforcement recovered approximately $1.75 million in U.S. currency, two firearms, seven vehicles, marijuana, and other assets. Approximately 125 federal, state, and local officers participated in these arrests and search warrants.
In making today’s announcement about the federal charges, searches, and arrests, United States Attorney Krueger stated: “Drug-traffickers are motivated by money, pure and simple. These charges reflect our commitment to working with federal, state, and local law enforcement to seize drug money and prosecute drug crimes aggressively.”
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agent in Charge Joel L. Lee stated: “The highly successful outcome in this case came as a direct result of the tremendous partnership and teamwork shared with the Wisconsin Department of Justice – Division of Criminal Investigation and as well as contributing local counterparts. Communities in several states to include Wisconsin are better off with the dismantling of this criminal operation.”
Milwaukee Drug Enforcement Administration Agent in Charge Paul E. Maxwell, Jr. commended the collaborative and purposeful approach by state, local and federal law enforcement. “This investigation exemplifies multiple law enforcement agencies collaborating to fight the ongoing drug threat in Wisconsin and throughout the United States. The Drug Enforcement Administration is committed to working with our law enforcement partners and this case is a true reflection of those partnerships,” remarked Maxwell.
“A great group effort by federal, state, local and out-of-state law enforcement agencies has led to the disruption of yet another drug trafficking organization,” said Attorney General Brad Schimel. “We have made the community safer by working together to get drugs, guns, and money out of the hands of criminals.”
The defendants were charged after a lengthy investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Justice - Division of Criminal Investigation, along with the Milwaukee Police Department, North Central HIDTA, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Milwaukee Field Office and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Financial Investigators. The case was also supported by the Los Angeles HIDTA, City of Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, Shasta County Sheriff’s Department, HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Department, Fairfax County Police Department, Alexandria Police Department, Virginia State Police, Northern Virginia HIDTA, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. In addition, the case was supported by the United States Attorney Offices in the Central District of California, Eastern District of Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Elizabeth M. Monfils and Gail J. Hoffman.
A criminal complaint is merely the formal method of charging an individual and does not constitute inference of his or her guilt. An individual is presumed innocent until such time, if ever, that the government establishes his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
# # # # #
For additional information contact:
Public Information Officer Dean Puschnig (414) 297-1700
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 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
A man who conspired to distribute methamphetamine and possessed a firearm while distributing methamphetamine was sentenced on October 2, 2018, in federal court in Sioux City.
Joe Ramon Santillan, 46, from Eagle Grove, Iowa, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on March 22, 2018. Santillan was previously convicted of a felony drug offense in California in 2008.
At the guilty plea hearing, Santillan admitted that from about February 2017 through November 2017, he distributed more than 1500 grams of mixed methamphetamine which contained more than 500 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine in the Hamilton, Webster, and HumboldtCounty areas of Iowa and particularly Eagle Grove and Webster City. On November 9, 2017, law enforcement agents executed a federal search warrant at Santillan’s residence in Eagle Grove, Iowa. Agents seized approximately one pound of methamphetamine in a bag along with packaging materials and a digital scale in Santillan’s bedroom and seven firearms, including two loaded handguns, two assault-style rifles, two other rifles and a shotgun. Agents also seized approximately $8,000 cash in Santillan’s pocket and $25,000 cash in a safe in his bedroom.
Santillan was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Judge Linda R. Reade. Santillan was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment. He must also serve a 10-year term of supervised release after the prison term. There is no parole in the federal system.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Shawn S. Wehde and was investigated by the Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement, Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations, Wright County Sheriff’s Office, Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, Webster County Sheriff’s Office, and HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office.
Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.
The case file number is 17-3052. Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.
COLUMBUS, Ga. – A repeat offender who prosecutors say was attempting to take over the illicit drug market in Columbus by obtaining methamphetamine, cocaine and high-grade marijuana from California was found guilty by a jury this week of drug trafficking resulting from Operation Sweet Silence, a multi-agency law enforcement effort in the community conducted as part of Operation Take Back America, the Department of Justice’s nationwide effort cracking down on criminal organizations and cartels.Marquez Holloway, aka “Glizzy,” 32, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine and more than 50 kilograms of marijuana following a two-day trial that began on Dec. 1, before U.S. District Judge Clay Land. The defendant faces a maximum of 30 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 24, 2026. There is no parole in the federal system.“Illegal drugs pouring into our communities from dangerous cartels pose a serious threat to the safety of our nation,” said U.S. Attorney William R. “Will” Keyes. “Here in the Middle District of Georgia, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our local, state and federal law enforcement partners to dismantle criminal organizations and hold their associates accountable.”“The jury convicted the defendant of working across state lines to traffic dangerous drugs — methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana — into his community,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General, Matthew R. Galeotti. “These poisonous drugs drive violence and addiction. The Criminal Division will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute drug traffickers to restore a sense of safety to neighborhoods throughout the country.”“Illicit drugs devastate our communities, resulting in significant suffering by those addicted and their families,” said FBI Atlanta Special Agent in Charge Paul Brown. “We will continue to work with our federal, state and local partners to prevent this poison from finding its way onto our streets.”“The DEA is deploying all resources available to combat criminal organizations that are destroying our communities with drugs, guns and violence,” said Rob Murphy, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Atlanta Division. “This repeat offender’s actions show a deliberate attempt to seize control of an illicit drug market and expand the harm these substances inflict on our communities. DEA will not allow individuals like this to profit from addiction and violence. We will continue working with our partners to disrupt their operations and bring them to justice.”“This is a huge victory for the citizens we serve,” said Muscogee County Sheriff Greg Countryman. “There is strength in collaboration when we combine our resources to go after criminal enterprises involving street gangs, drug dealers and convicted felons. We will continue this fight for safer streets and a safer community.”According to court documents and statements referenced at trial, federal and local law enforcement conducted Operation Sweet Silence from Aug. 2022 until May 2024, an extensive investigation into the illegal activities of the Zohannon criminal street gang involving armed drug trafficking. During this extensive investigation, agents discovered that Holloway, who is not a member of the Zohannon organization, was working with others to take control of the illegal drug market in Columbus by supplying exceptionally high-grade marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine from California.Between September and December 2023, Holloway obtained at least 110 pounds of marijuana to sell in Columbus. Evidence revealed Holloway was sold a kilogram of cocaine and attempted to obtain methamphetamine for distribution in the community during this time. Holloway is a repeat offender, with a prior state conviction in Georgia for drug trafficking.This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).The case was investigated by the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Muscogee County Sheriff’s Office with critical assistance from the Harris County Sheriff’s Office; the Russell County, Alabama, Sheriff’s Office; the Coweta County Sheriff’s Office; the Sacramento County, California, Sheriff’s Office; and the Muscogee County District Attorney’s Office.Assistant U.S. Attorney Veronica Hansis of the Middle District of Georgia and Trial Attorney Matthew P. Mattis of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section are prosecuting the case for the Government.
SAN DIEGO – David Warren of Las Vegas was sentenced in federal court today to 10 years in prison for coercing three women to engage in prostitution and transporting them from Las Vegas to San Diego for that purpose.
Authorities found the women after one victim approached a San Diego lifeguard to ask for help on September 12, 2023, at Mission Beach. The victim said she was trafficked from Las Vegas and wanted help. The lifeguard immediately notified San Diego Police. The San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force quickly located and recovered the other two victims at a local hotel and arrested Warren.
According to his plea agreement, Warren preyed on and trafficked the victims—one of whom was homeless and vulnerable to substance abuse--through violence, threats of violence, and emotional abuse. Once Warren and the women were in San Diego, he took the victims to various beaches to solicit customers.
“Profiteers exploit victims of human trafficking anywhere they think they can take advantage, even on the beach in daylight,” said U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath. “This brave woman saved herself and others by trusting a San Diego lifeguard who immediately jumped into action.”
“The DOJ-led San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force is laser-focused on holding human traffickers accountable in San Diego County,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “We must work together across every level of government and society to help bring human trafficking to an end. No one agency can do it all alone. I am grateful to our local, state and federal partners for holding traffickers accountable and creating a real, lasting impact on survivors.”
“This circumstance was not the typical rescue our lifeguards perform,” said Marine Safety Captain Maureen Hodges. “However, we were glad to be of service and keep this victim safe while notifying San Diego Police that she needed assistance.”
“The San Diego Police Department is a proud member of the San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force (SDHTTF),” said Chief Scott Wahl. “The suspect in this case used violence and manipulation to control his victims. Thankfully, due to the quick action of the SDPD and SDHTTF, Warren was arrested and all three victims in the case were rescued. SDPD remains committed to utilizing every resource to rescue victims of human trafficking, while holding their traffickers accountable.”
If you are living or working under threat of violence or extortion, or you suspect someone else may be, call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center toll free, 24/7 Hotline: CALL: (888) 373-7888 or TEXT BeFree or 233733.
This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Derek Ko and Lyndzie M. Carter.
DEFENDANT Case Number 23-cr-2102-JLS
David Warren Age: 37 Las Vegas, NV
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Transportation for Purpose of Prostitution – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2421(a)
Maximum penalty: Ten years in prison and $250,000 fine
Coercion and Enticement – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2422(a)
Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES
Homeland Security Investigations
San Diego Police Department
San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force
City of San Diego, Fire-Rescue Department, Lifeguard Services Division
A dual U.S.-Iranian national and CEO of an Iran-based technology company was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging him with violating U.S. sanctions against Iran by acquiring sophisticated U.S.-origin networking, security, and encryption equipment for Iranian customers — including the Iranian regime’s nuclear and military establishments.“As alleged, Ghomi enriched himself by supplying U.S. technology to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and other sanctioned entities responsible for the Iran’s nuclear program,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg. “The National Security Division will hold accountable those who violate our laws to further Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”“Ghomi is accused of aiding our declared enemies by selling U.S.-origin computer networking parts to Iran and earning millions of dollars in violation of U.S. sanction laws,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California. “Our nation’s laws prohibiting doing business with one of the world’s largest state sponsors of terrorism must be enforced and obeyed. We will hold him accountable by seeking an appropriate prison sentence and by seizing his assets, including his $35 million Newport Beach mansion.”“Today’s arrest reflects our commitment to disrupt the illegal flow of American technology to foreign nations, especially our adversaries,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Darren Lian of the IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) Los Angeles Field Office. “As alleged, Mr. Ghomi spent years exploiting United States financial systems and procurement channels to move controlled equipment to Iran while hiding his activities behind front companies and falsified documentation. We will continue to work with our partners to safeguard national security by utilizing our financial investigative expertise.”Jamshid Ghomi, 63, of Newport Coast, California, is charged with conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).Ghomi is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California.The IEEPA and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR) impose controls and restrictions on transactions involving Iran based on the threats posed by Iran to the national security of the United States, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons and sponsorship of terrorism. The IEEPA and ITSR prohibit the export, re-export, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran without first obtaining authorization from OFAC. According to the affidavit filed with the complaint, Ghomi is the founder, owner, and CEO of Faraz Pardaz Rayaneh Co. Ltd. (FPR), a Tehran-based computer networking company. For more than a decade, Ghomi has used FPR to procure U.S.-origin networking equipment for customers in Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions. Ghomi or FPR never obtained a license from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) authorizing those transactions.Ghomi identified, negotiated, purchased, and arranged the shipment of large quantities of controlled U.S. technology for his own company. From 2011 to 2015, he used his own eBay and PayPal accounts to make more than 400 purchases of computer-networking equipment, directing the goods to intermediaries in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In 2023, Ghomi personally negotiated the purchase of U.S.-origin networking equipment directly from suppliers in Minnesota and Nebraska, routing it through a UAE front company and on to FPR in Iran. None of these items could be lawfully exported to Iran without a license from OFAC.From 2014 to 2018, Ghomi arranged the smuggling of more than 250 metric tons (275.6 U.S. tons) of networking equipment into Iran, using freight forwarders and intermediaries in Dubai to disguise that Iran was the true destination.Ghomi knew this conduct was illegal and took deliberate steps to conceal it. He directed his UAE co-conspirators to keep his name off shipping paperwork, to omit invoices from shipments bound for Iran, and on at least two occasions to hide U.S.-origin computer equipment inside larger shipments. He used front companies in the UAE to obscure his role, and he personally received warnings on invoices and software licenses that exporting these goods to Iran was prohibited. Ghomi and his co-conspirators referred to Iran as “Motherland” in their internal correspondence concerning the equipment’s procurement.FPR’s annual sales exceeded $10 million and ran to hundreds of Iranian companies and government entities, many of which were subject to U.S. sanctions. A relatively small but significant portion of that business went to the most sensitive end-users in Iran: the Iranian regime’s nuclear and military establishment.From 2017 to 2023, FPR supplied U.S.-origin computer networking equipment to the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) — the Iranian government agency responsible for Iran’s nuclear program, including its centrifuge and uranium-enrichment programs. The U.S. State Department sanctioned AEOI in 2020 for playing a leading role in Iran's nonperformance of its nuclear commitments, including exceeding the limits on its uranium stockpile and enrichment levels. According to the affidavit, AEOI required FPR to register as an approved vendor, which it did in 2021 and 2022. From 2014 to 2022, FPR supplied U.S.-origin networking, security, and encryption equipment to Iran’s Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics — the Iranian ministry responsible for research, development, and manufacturing across Iran’s defense enterprise — and to affiliated military and defense-electronics entities. FPR’s 2017 contract with Iran Computer Industries, signed by Ghomi, expressly identified the buyer as the “Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics — Iran Computer Industries.”Ghomi laundered the proceeds of his illegal business into the United States, depositing FPR’s Iranian sales revenue into its operating account at a sanctioned Iranian bank and then sweeping those funds to himself. Within days, he received corresponding wires into his U.S. accounts from a rotating set of unrelated trading companies and exchange houses in the British Virgin Islands, Hong Kong, Turkey, and the UAE. Those wires bore false descriptions such as “Buying Goods” and “For Consulting Fees.”From 2011 to 2024, Ghomi moved more than $15 million from Iran into his U.S. bank accounts and into a construction escrow account held on his behalf. He falsely reported those funds to the IRS as a foreign inheritance. Ghomi’s federal tax returns reported almost no income, his highest reported income in any year being $20,684. Ghomi claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, a federal tax break for low- to moderate-income working individuals and families, in seven different tax years. Over the same period, Ghomi reported more than $1.7 million in home-mortgage interest and $1.25 million in state and local real-estate taxes on his federal income tax returns.
Ghomi funded the construction of his Orange County, California, mansion with the proceeds of his sanctions-evasion scheme. Ghomi purchased a vacant lot in Newport Coast in March 2010 for $4,490,000 and paid approximately $10,490,371 to construct the residence from 2010 to 2013. From May 2011 to August 2015, foreign-source wires totaling more than $7 million flowed into the escrow account funding the home’s construction. These wires came from many of the same trading companies as the transfers from FPR’s operating account, were handled by the same FPR employees, and bore the same false descriptions. A complaint is merely an allegation of criminal conduct, not evidence. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.If convicted, Ghomi would face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.IRS-CI, in coordination with the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, is investigating the case.Assistant U.S. Attorney David C. Lachman for the Central District of California is prosecuting the case, with valuable assistance from the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.A complaint merely contains allegations. All defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Miami, Florida – On July 12, 2021, Los Angeles County, California natives, Dane Roseman, 38, and Ivan Acevedo, 44, pled guilty to participating in a massive investment fraud scheme, in which more than 7,000 victims suffered financial losses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Co-defendant Robert Shapiro, the former owner, president, and CEO of Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC (“Woodbridge”) was previously sentenced to the maximum sentence of 25 years in prison for his leadership role in the fraud scheme and his separate income tax fraud.
According to the indictment, superseding information, and court documents, Shapiro spearheaded and concealed an enormous Ponzi scheme through his business, Woodbridge. Woodbridge employed approximately 130 people and had offices located throughout the United States, including in Boca Raton, Florida; Sherman Oaks, California; Colorado; Tennessee; and Connecticut. The scheme ran from at least July 2012 to December 2017, when Woodbridge filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and defaulted on its obligations to investors.
Throughout the conspiracy, Woodbridge’s main business model was to solicit money from investors and, in exchange, issue investors promissory notes reflecting purported loans to Woodbridge that paid high monthly interest rates. Woodbridge falsely claimed that these investments were tied to real property owned by third parties and that the third parties would be making the interest payments to Woodbridge and its investors; it was portrayed as an investment in a hard-money lending business.
Roseman started working for Woodbridge as a sales agent in or around August 2012. Between 2015 and 2017 he served as the sales manager of Woodbridge. Acevedo started working for Woodbridge as a sales agent in or around 2009, and in 2013 to December 2014 he served as the sales manager of Woodbridge. As sales managers, these defendants sold Woodbridge securities and trained and supervised Woodbridge internal sales agents who sold Woodbridge securities. Using high-pressure sales tactics, Shapiro, Roseman, Acevedo, and others marketed and promoted these investments as low-risk, safe, simple, and conservative. And at minimum, investors were made to believe that Woodbridge’s real estate dealings would generate the funds used to pay the return on their investments.
The Woodbridge sales operation controlled by Shapiro, managed by Acevedo then Roseman, functioned as a “phone room” and featured high-pressure sales tactics, deception, and manipulation. Woodbridge promoted investments through telephone and in-person conversations, e-mails and website displays. The scheme also involved misrepresentations to financial planners who helped Woodbridge to sell investments to potential investors.
Despite Woodbridge’s claims that these investments would be backed by properties owned by third parties, in fact, to the extent that the properties existed, they were secretly owned by Shapiro. Unbeknownst to investors, Shapiro created and controlled a network of more than 270 limited liability companies, which he used to acquire and sell the properties pitched to investors.
Shapiro, Roseman, and Acevedo falsely claimed that Woodbridge was profitable and advertised high rates of return to investors. However, Shapiro’s real estate portfolio failed to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy the loan obligations and interest payments owed to investors. To make up for the cash deficiency, Shapiro resorted to making Ponzi payments, i.e., hundreds of millions of dollars invested by new investors were used to pay “returns” to older, existing Woodbridge investors. In some instances, Shapiro made these fraudulent “interest” payments even when the advertised investment properties were never acquired.
As its sole owner and chief operator, Shapiro compartmentalized Woodbridge operations to restrict access to information concerning Woodbridge’s finances. Neither Roseman nor Acevedo had access to or knowledge of Woodbridge’s finances and were unaware that Shapiro was using new investor money to pay prior investors. Thus, neither Roseman nor Acevedo had direct knowledge that Shapiro was operating a Ponzi scheme by using new Woodbridge investor money to pay prior investors.
In total, Shapiro and his co-conspirators convinced more than approximately 9,000 investors to invest more than $1.29 billion to Woodbridge. According to the Superseding Information and Superseding Indictment, at least 2,600 of these investor victims invested their retirement savings, totaling approximately $400 million. Of that, Shapiro misappropriated approximately $25 million to $95 million in investor money for himself and for the benefit of his immediate family members. Roseman received approximately $2.5 million in Woodbridge money and Acevedo received approximately $1.1 million. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed parallel civil enforcement actions against Woodbridge, Shapiro, his wife, and Acevedo and Roseman related to the fraud.
Roseman is scheduled to be sentenced on September 20, at 1:00 p.m. and Acevedo is scheduled to be sentenced on September 20, at 1:30 p.m., by U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, who sits in Miami.
Juan Antonio Gonzalez, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, Tyler R. Hatcher, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR), made the announcement.
Acting U.S. Attorney Gonzalez commended the investigative efforts of the FBI, IRS-CI and OFR in this matter. He thanked the SEC Miami Regional Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California for their assistance. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Cruz. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Klco is handling the asset forfeiture component of the case.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 19-cr-20178.
MIAMI – On March 22, four defendants were sentenced to federal prison following their convictions for conspiracy to rob drug-traffickers of their narcotics, money, and other property.
Three of the defendants, Palacio Valdes Farley, aka BoBo, 43, Joassaint Josiah Aristil Jr., aka JoJo, 28, Jamar Brandon Nattiel, aka Debo and D-Boy, 47, were convicted by a jury in December 2023; the fourth defendant, Andrew Francois Martin, 31, pleaded guilty in November 2023.
U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman sentenced Farley, the leader of the conspiracy, to 240 months (20 years) in prison which will run consecutively to a 169-month (14 years) federal prison sentence for conspiracies to commit drug-trafficking and money laundering offenses that he is currently serving.
Aristil was sentenced to 200 months (more than 16 years) in prison, to run consecutively to a 121-month (10 years) federal prison term for carjacking and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence that he is currently serving.
The court sentenced Nattiel to 188 months (more than 15 years) in prison.
Martin was sentenced to 210 months (more than 17 years) in prison, to run consecutively to a 25-year Florida state prison sentence he is serving for an armed robbery that Martin and Farley committed in Daytona Beach, Florida, in April 2017.
From May 22, 2016, until Dec. 11, 2017, Farley conspired with his co-defendants to rob drug-traffickers in California. On May 24, 2016, Farley, Martin, and other unindicted co-conspirators, committed an armed home invasion robbery of two drug-traffickers, in Van Nuys, California, during which both victims were shot multiple times.
On Dec. 5, 2017, at Farley’s direction, Aristil, Nattiel, co-defendants Karen Williams and Lisa Flood, and other co-conspirators, committed an armed home invasion robbery of a drug-trafficker in Orange County, California. During the robbery, the drug-trafficker, and his wife, were restrained and held at gunpoint, while the robbers ransacked their house and stole narcotics, cash, and jewelry. Aristil, Nattiel, Williams, Flood, and another co-conspirator, then drove across the country to Miami Beach, Florida, where they delivered the stolen drugs to Farley, who was out on bond for state court charges and confined to his apartment on Collins Avenue.
U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey B. Veltri of FBI, Miami Field Office, and Sheriff Gregory Tony of the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) announced the sentences.
FBI, Miami Field Office and BSO investigated this case with assistance from the Lauderhill Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Daytona Beach Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dwayne E. Williams and Elena Smukler prosecuted the case.
Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.
This prosecution is a part of the Justice’s Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) programs.
PSN is the centerpiece of the Department of Justice’s violent crime reduction efforts. PSN is an evidence-based program proven to be effective at reducing violent crime. Through the PSN program a broad spectrum of law enforcement and community stakeholders work together to identify the most pressing violent crime problems in the community and develop comprehensive solutions to address them. As part of this strategy, PSN focuses enforcement efforts on the most violent offenders and partners with locally based prevention and reentry programs to reduce violence crime and gun violence, and to make our local neighborhoods safer for everyone.
OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs and transnational criminal organizations through a prosecutor-led and intelligence-driven approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 22-cr-20556.
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced its Election Day plans for the Nov. 6, 2018 general election. The Civil Rights Division will monitor compliance with the federal voting rights laws by deploying personnel to 35 jurisdictions in 19 states.
“Voting rights are constitutional rights, and they’re part of what it means to be an American,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said. “The Department of Justice has been entrusted with an indispensable role in securing these rights for the people of this nation. This year we are using every lawful tool that we have, both civil and criminal, to protect the rights of millions of Americans to cast their vote unimpeded at one of more than 170,000 precincts across America. Citizens of America control this country through their selection of their governmental officials at the ballot box. Likewise, fraud in the voting process will not be tolerated. Fraud also corrupts the integrity of the ballot.”
State and local governments have primary responsibility for administering elections in the United States. The Civil Rights Division is charged with enforcing the federal voting rights laws that protect the rights of all citizens to access the ballot on Election Day. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the Division has regularly monitored all kinds of elections in the field around the country throughout every year to protect the rights of all voters, and not just in federal general elections. On Nov. 6, the Division again will be monitoring in the field around the country.
On Election Day, the Division staff members will be available all day by telephone to receive complaints from the public related to possible violations of the federal voting rights laws (1-800-253-3931 toll free or 202-307-2767 or TTY 202-305-0082). In addition, individuals may also report complaints by fax to 202-307-3961, by email to voting.section@usdoj.gov, and by a complaint form on the Department’s website: www.justice.gov/crt/votercomplaint.
Allegations of election fraud are handled by the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country and the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. Complaints may be directed to the local U.S. Attorneys’ Office or local FBI office. A list of U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and their telephone numbers can be found at www.justice.gov/usao/find-your-united-states-attorney. A list of FBI offices and their telephone numbers can be found at www.fbi.gov/contact-us.
Complaints related to disruption at a polling place should always be reported immediately to local election officials (including officials in the polling place). Complaints related to violence, threats of violence or intimidation at a polling place should be reported immediately to local police authorities by calling 911. These complaints should also be reported to the Department after local authorities have been contacted.
On Election Day, the Civil Rights Division plans to deploy personnel to 35 jurisdictions in 19 states to monitor for compliance with the federal voting rights laws:
Bethel Census Area, Alaska;
Dillingham Census Area, Alaska;
Kusilvak Census Area, Alaska;
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska;
Apache County, Arizona;
Cochise County, Arizona;
Maricopa County, Arizona;
Navajo County, Arizona;
Sacramento County, California;
San Mateo County, California;
DeSoto County, Florida;
Palm Beach County, Florida;
Pinellas County, Florida;
Fulton County, Georgia;
Gwinnett County, Georgia;
Buena Vista County, Iowa;
Ford County, Kansas;
Lowell, Massachusetts;
Malden, Massachusetts;
Clark County, Nevada;
Washoe County, Nevada;
Middlesex County, New Jersey;
Union County, New Jersey;
Erie County, New York;
Benson County, North Dakota;
Rolette County, North Dakota;
Texas County, Oklahoma;
Lehigh County, Pennsylvania;
Pawtucket, Rhode Island;
Buffalo County, South Dakota;
Harris County, Texas;
Tarrant County, Texas;
Waller County, Texas;
San Juan County, Utah; and
Fairfax County, Virginia.
The Civil Rights Division will gather information on, among other things, whether voters are subject to different voting qualifications or procedures on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group; whether jurisdictions are complying with the language minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act; whether jurisdictions permit a voter to receive assistance by a person of his or her choice if the voter has a disability or is unable to read or write; whether jurisdictions provide polling locations and voting systems allowing voters with disabilities to cast a private and independent ballot; whether jurisdictions comply with the voter registration list requirements of the National Voter Registration Act; and whether jurisdictions comply with the provisional ballot requirements of the Help America Vote Act. Division personnel will also maintain contact with local election officials.
The Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section enforces the civil provisions of a wide range of federal statutes that protect the right to vote including the Voting Rights Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Acts. The Division’s Disability Rights Section enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act to ensure that persons with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to vote. Information about the Americans with Disabilities Act and about how to file a disability related complaint can be found at www.ada.gov. The Division’s Criminal Section enforces federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation and voter suppression based on race, color, national origin or religion.
Last week, the Justice Department announced efforts to ensure that all qualified voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots and have their votes counted free of discrimination, intimidation or fraud in the election process. More information about the federal voting rights laws is available on the Civil Rights Division’s website at www.justice.gov/crt/voting-section.
MIAMI – On May 17, an Orange County, California, resident, Tenzin Orgil, 24, was sentenced to 168 months in federal prison for participating in a drug trafficking enterprise that included the sale of methamphetamine and fentanyl on the dark web, as well as the manufacture of ecstasy (also known as MDMA) and methamphetamine in clandestine laboratories. Orgil pleaded guilty in July 2023 and was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams in the Southern District of Florida.
According to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) National Drug Threat Assessment synthetic drugs have resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced. These synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl and methamphetamine, are responsible for nearly all of the fatal drug poisonings in our nation. Fentanyl killed 38,000 Americans in the first six months of 2023 alone. Just one fentanyl pill can kill. Two milligrams of fentanyl is considered a potentially fatal dose and laboratory testing indicates seven out of 10 pills seized by the DEA contain a lethal dose of fentanyl.
Since at least 2020, until the time of his arrest, Orgil worked under the dark web vendor monikers iEUROPA, iUSA, iAMERICA, UNITEDAIRLINES and SVR667, to distribute large amounts of narcotics via various dark web marketplaces, as well as the peer-to-peer encrypted chat platform, Wickr. Orgil was based in California and sold cocaine, MDMA, heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine via the U.S. mail system to customers all over the United States, to include in South Florida. Between 2020 and 2021, through undercover purchases from Orgil via the dark web or Wickr, law enforcement officers in South Florida seized 2.54 grams of fentanyl, in the form of counterfeit oxycodone pills, and 4.965 kilograms of methamphetamine, which was 100% pure. Orgil was also a major manufacturer of MDMA and methamphetamine. He operated numerous clandestine laboratories in California.
Photo of one of Orgil’s dark web vendor pages, included in the Government’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to Motion for Revocation of Magistrate Court’s Order of Bond (DE 15-1)
On Dec. 23, 2022, Irvine Police Department officers in California stopped Orgil while he was driving a vehicle. During a search of his vehicle, Orgil had in his possession several precursor chemicals, obtained from Chinese chemical companies, that are used to produce MDMA, as well as two cellphones. A search of these phones found photos of narcotics, as well as evidence of Orgil’s dark web vendor moniker name of “iBULK” and his access of darknet marketplaces. The search also revealed photos of clandestine laboratories and screenshots of text messages explaining how to manufacture illicit narcotics. Orgil’s phones also revealed that he was in communication with several Chinese chemical manufacturing companies in order to purchase precursor chemicals.
Photo of one of Orgil’s clandestine laboratories, included in the Government’s Response to the Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum (DE 67).
Photo of Orgil’s text communications regarding drug manufacturing, included in DE 67
On Jan. 18, 2023, law enforcement agents arrested Orgil and a search warrant was executed at his residence in California. A search of his residence revealed a gun with a loaded magazine, numerous fake identification cards, a recipe for manufacturing methamphetamine, and a computer. A search of his computer revealed photographs of counterfeit blue M30/oxycodone pills with a Dark Market/United Airlines label, bags of methamphetamine with an iUSA label and cocaine with a SVR667 label. Additionally, copies of the mailing labels for the packages sent in the undercover purchases were preserved on Orgil’s computer.
U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida, Special Agent in Charge Deanne L. Reuter of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Miami Field Division, Special Agent in Charge Jeffery B. Veltri of the FBI, Miami Field Office, Inspector in Charge Juan A. Vargas of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), Miami Division, Special Agent in Charge Matthew D. Line of the IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), Miami Field Office and Special Agent in Charge Anthony Salisbury of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Miami announced the sentence imposed.
DEA Miami Field Division’s Counternarcotic Cyber Investigations Task Force, FBI Miami, USPIS Miami, IRS-CI Miami Field Office and HSI Miami investigated the case with assistance from DEA San Jose, United States Postal Inspection Service San Jose, DEA New England, Massachusetts State Police - Gaming Enforcement Unit, DEA Orange County, DEA Omaha, DEA Forth Worth, Irvine Police Department, and the Costa Mesa Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Monique Botero prosecuted the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicole Grosnoff handled asset forfeiture.
The indictment is a result of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigations. The OCDETF mission is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States, using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency task force approach. OCDETF synchronizes and incentivizes prosecutors and agents to lead smart, creative investigations targeting the command-and-control networks of organized criminal groups and the illicit financiers that support them. Additional information about the OCDETF Program may be found at www.justice.gov/OCDETF.
Members of the South Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task Force carried out this case and prosecution. HIDTA was established in 1990. This program, which is made up of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, fosters intra-agency cooperation among law enforcement agencies in South Florida and involves them in developing a strategy to target the region's drug-related and violent crime threats to public safety, as with the opioid epidemic, fentanyl, and the cocaine threat to our nation. The South Florida HIDTA uses the funding provided by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, out of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, that sponsors a variety of law enforcement initiatives that target the region's illicit drug and violent crime threats to our community.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov, under case number 23-cr-20018.
Jacksonville, Florida – United States Attorney Roger B. Handberg announces that Jason Charles Nicholas (53, Ramona, California) has been arrested and indicted for distributing child sexual abuse materials over the internet. If convicted, Nicholas faces a minimum mandatory penalty of 5 years, and up to 20 years, in federal prison and a potential life term of supervised release. Nicholas was arrested on September 21, 2023 in San Diego County, California. He has been detained and will be transported to Jacksonville by the U.S. Marshals Service for prosecution in this case.
According to court documents, on August 3, 2023, an FBI agent in the Jacksonville area, using the persona of the parent of an 11-year-old “child,” began working in an undercover (UC) capacity on a particular social media application (app) to identify individuals who were attempting to sexually exploit children. The UC began a private conversation on the app with a user named “cldad,” who was subsequently identified as Nicholas. Nicholas falsely claimed that he lived in Florida and indicated his desire to meet the UC at the UC’s residence in northeast Florida to have sex with the 11-year-old “child.” However, Nicholas subsequently abandoned this plan and began threatening the UC that he would expose the UC’s purported criminal sexual conduct unless the UC streamed live video of the “child” to Nicholas. The UC refused to do so. Nicholas later apologized for threatening the UC and the two continued online conversations for several weeks. Nicholas told the UC about his longtime practice of brushing up against and taking surreptitious photos (“creep shots”) of young girls in public places, and also that he had abused a young child after overdosing the child with medication.
During an online conversation on August 17, 2023, Nicholas sent the UC six videos and two photos that depicted young children being sexually abused. Further investigation by the FBI led to the identification of Nicholas. On September 21, 2023, FBI agents, with assistance from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, arrested Nicholas as he was on his way to work. On that same day, a federal search warrant was executed at Nicholas’ residence resulting the seizure of several electronic devices.
This case was investigated by the Clay County Sheriff’s Office, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Jacksonville and San Diego. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney D. Rodney Brown.
An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed one or more violations of federal criminal law, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty.
It is another case brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue child victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.
Orlando, Florida – United States District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza has sentenced Alan W. Filion (18, Lancaster, CA) to four years in federal prison for making interstate threats to injure the person of another.According to the plea agreement, from approximately August 2022 to January 2024, Filion made over 375 swatting and threat calls, including calls in which he claimed to have planted bombs in the targeted locations or threatened to detonate bombs and/or conduct mass shootings at those locations. Filion targeted religious institutions, high schools, colleges and universities, government officials, and numerous individuals across the United States.Filion intended his calls to cause large-scale deployment of police and emergency services units to the targeted locations. During these calls, he provided information to law enforcement and emergency services agencies that he knew to be false, such as false names, false claims that he and others had placed explosives in particular locations, false claims that he and others possessed dangerous weapons, including firearms and explosives, and false claims that he and/or other individuals had committed, or intended to imminently commit, violent crimes. In some instances, armed law enforcement officers approached and entered a targeted residence with their weapons drawn and detained individuals that occupied the residence. Filion claimed in a post on January 20, 2023, that when he swats someone he “usually get[s] the cops to drag the victim and their families out of the house cuff them and search the house for dead bodies.” Additionally, Filion’s calls caused law enforcement officers and dispatchers to respond, and to be unavailable in response to other emergencies.Filion became a serial swatter for both profit and recreation. He claimed in a January 19, 2023, online post that his “first” swatting was like “2 to 3 years ago” and that “6-9 months ago [he] decided to turn it into a business. . . .” On several occasions, Filion placed posts on social-media channels advertising his services and swatting-for-a-fee structure.On January 18, 2024, Filion was arrested in California on Florida state charges arising from a May 2023 threat he made to a religious institution in Sanford, Florida. In that threat, he claimed to have an illegally modified AR-15, a Glock 17 pistol, pipe bombs, and Molotov cocktails. He said that he was going to imminently “commit a mass shooting” and “kill everyone” he saw. He pleaded guilty in federal court to making that threat.Filion also pleaded guilty to making three other threatening calls: an October 2022 call to a public high school in the Western District of Washington, in which he threatened to commit a mass shooting and claimed to have planted bombs throughout the school; a May 2023 call to a Historically Black College & University in the Northern District of Florida, in which he claimed to have placed bombs in the walls and ceilings of campus housing that would detonate in about an hour; and a July 2023 call to a local police department dispatch number in the Western District of Texas, in which he falsely identified himself as a senior federal law enforcement officer, provided the federal law-enforcement officer’s residential address to the dispatcher, claimed to have killed his (the federal officer’s) mother, and threatened to kill any responding police officers. This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Secret Service. Valuable assistance was provided by the Seminole County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office; the Anacortes (Washington) Police Department; the Florida Department of Law Enforcement; the California Department of Justice; the Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff’s Office; and the Volusia County (Florida) Sheriff’s Office. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Kara Wick, with valuable assistance from the State Attorney’s Office for Seminole County, Florida, 18th Judicial Circuit; the Counterterrorism Section of the United States Department of Justice; and the United States Attorneys’ Offices for the Western District of Washington, the Northern District of Florida, the Western District of Texas, and the District of Columbia.
Tampa, Florida – Acting United States Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow announces the return of indictments charging Anner Javier Maldonado-Reyes (39, Largo) and Maria Guadalupe Maldonado (38, Largo) with illegal reentry into the United States. If convicted, each faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison.
According to the indictments, Anner Maldonado-Reyes, who has operated under several aliases over the years, including “Jose Martinez-Reyes,” “Juan Martinez,” and “Pedro Vargas-Monteramos,” has previously been removed from the United States on at least two occasions: in February 1999 and in February 2008. His February 1999 removal came after a conviction in Los Angeles County, California for possession of cocaine base for sale.
Maria Guadalupe Maldonado, who also has had several aliases over the years, including “Stephanie Sanchez,” was removed from the United States in October 1996 following a conviction in Los Angeles County, California for transportation/sale of a controlled substance.
These individuals do not have legal status in the United States and have not received permission from the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission. Government records indicate that Anner and Maria Maldonado are the founders of, and employed as ministers in, the church Ministerio Internacional Jesucristo Es Mi Refugio located at 1550 Belcher Road South in Largo.
An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed one or more violations of federal criminal law, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty.
This case was investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, with assistance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Frank Murray.
Jacksonville, Florida – United States District Judge Marcia Morales Howard has sentenced Jason Charles Nicholas (54, Ramona, California) to 13 years and 4 months in federal prison for distributing child sexual abuse material over the internet using a stolen online identity. Nicholas was also ordered to serve a 10-year term of supervised release, register as a sex offender, and pay $81,500 in restitution to child victims. Nicholas was arrested in San Diego County, California on September 21, 2023, and detained. He was subsequently transported to Jacksonville for prosecution.
According to court documents, on August 3, 2023, an undercover FBI agent (UC) in the Jacksonville area, posing as the parent of a minor “child,” was investigating individuals on a particular social media application (app) who were attempting to sexually exploit children. The UC began a private conversation on the app with user “cldad,” who was later identified as Nicholas. Nicholas was using an online identity stolen from a resident of northeast Florida, and Nicholas indicated his desire to meet the UC at a residence in Florida to have sex with the “child.” However, Nicholas abruptly changed this plan and began threatening to expose the UC’s purported criminal conduct unless the UC streamed live video of the “child” to Nicholas. The UC refused. Nicholas later apologized for making these threats, and online conversations between him and the UC continued for several weeks. Nicholas told the UC about his longtime practice of brushing up against and taking surreptitious photos of young girls and women in public places (Nicholas referred to these as “creep shots”), and that he had purportedly sexually abused a young child after overdosing the child with medication. Nicholas also sent the UC several photos of young women that he had digitally altered and sexualized to make them appear pornographic.
During an online conversation on August 17, 2023, Nicholas sent the UC six videos and two photos that depicted young children being sexually abused. Further investigation by the FBI led to the identification of Nicholas. On September 21, 2023, FBI agents, with assistance from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, arrested Nicholas as he was driving to his workplace.
When interviewed, Nicholas admitted that he had sent the videos and photos depicting the sexual abuse of minors to the UC using the app and by email, that his sexual attraction to children was “complicated,” and that he had been downloading child sexual abuse materials “for a long time.” A search of Nicholas’s cellphone revealed that it contained at least 2,500 explicit videos, many of which depicted the sexual abuse of young children, infants, and toddlers.
This case was investigated by the Clay County Sheriff’s Office, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Jacksonville and San Diego. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney D. Rodney Brown.
This is another case brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue child victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.
Seattle - A 61-year-old Issaquah, Washington, man pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court in Seattle to possession of child pornography, announced U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran. PHILIP B. GILBERT, who was employed in the IT department of the Archdiocese of Seattle, was arrested on state charges in May 2019. He was charged federally in October 2019. GILBERT faces up to 20 years in prison when sentenced by Chief U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez on September 25, 2020.
According to the plea agreement, in January 2019 an electronic service provider reported GILBERT’s account to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for uploading images of child rape and molestation. After obtaining a court-authorized search warrant, law enforcement served the warrant at GILBERT’s residence and seized electronic devices. The devices contained 256 images of child pornography.
Following GILBERT’s arrest, a victim came forward to law enforcement and reported GILBERT molested her. Contra Costa County, California, has charged the defendant with multiple sexual abuse crimes against a minor for which he faces life in prison. Following his federal sentence he will be transferred to California to resolve those charges.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc
The case was investigated by the King County Sheriff’s Office in subsequent collaboration with Homeland Security Investigations.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Cecelia Gregson.
LOS ANGELES – A Costa Mesa man pleaded guilty today to federal criminal charges for running fraudulent investment schemes that raised more than $17 million by promising investors – several of them elderly – returns of up to 10% that would be generated through real estate deals that turned out to be bogus, and for disobeying a court order to go to jail for violating the terms of his pretrial release.
Brett Barber, 44, a former co-owner of the Newport Beach-based BNZ Capital One LLC and National American Capital, pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and one count of criminal contempt.
According to his plea agreement, from May 2019 to October 2021, Barber participated in two schemes to defraud victim investors out of their money and property.
In the first scheme, BNZ Capital, its principals and several marketers raised money by falsely representing that the firm bought and sold real estate projects and “flipped” real estate. Barber, co-conspirator Louis Zimmerle, 64, of Sacramento, and the marketers falsely promised investors a “guaranteed” return of between 8% and 10%, as well as potential bonuses based on successful deals. According to court documents, Barber told investors that their funds were “safe” and “FDIC insured.”
In fact, while BNZ Capital did purchase some real estate, it did not take any substantial steps to develop parcels, nor did BNZ flip real estate for a profit. Rather, BNZ primarily used investor funds to pay Barber, Zimmerle and others associated with the scheme, including purchasing residences where Barber and Zimmerle lived. Some of the investors’ money was used to repay earlier investors.
During this scheme, Barber, Zimmerle, and the marketers solicited or caused to be transferred to BNZ Capital approximately $13.8 million from victim investors. Investigators estimate that actual losses resulting from this scheme are at least $7 million.
Barber admitted in his plea agreement that he received and kept approximately $2,933,970 of investor money for his personal gain. At least five BNZ Capital investors were elderly, vulnerable victims who suffered substantial hardship because of the fraud committed against them.
After Barber learned that federal officials were investigating BNZ Capital, he began a second fraudulent scheme, this time involving a company he formed in January 2021 called National American Capital (NAC). The NAC scheme operated, in substance, the same way as the BNZ Capital fraud. That is, Barber and marketers working at his direction lied to investors by saying their money would be used to fund real estate development projects. In fact, there were no such projects, and the only way NAC could repay earlier investors was by soliciting money from new investors.
Specifically, in October 2021, Barber met with a person he believed was a prospective investor, but who in fact was an undercover law enforcement official. During this meeting, Barber told several lies: that NAC had been in business for 20 years, that it owned 10 parcels of land in Laguna Beach, and that it had purchased property in Newport Beach and turned in into a four-plex. None of these statements was true.
Barber admitted in his plea agreement that this scheme caused a loss of at least $3.5 million. He further admitted to receiving and keeping at least $388,669 of investor money for his personal gain.
During the BNZ Capital and NAC schemes, Barber failed to disclose to investors that he previously was barred from acting as or associating with a broker-dealer by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
Finally, after a federal grand jury indicted Barber in October 2021, he was released on bond. In January 2023, a court found that Barber violated the terms of his pretrial release and ordered him to surrender to the United States Marshals Service by January 13. Barber willfully disobeyed the court’s order and failed to surrender. In March 2023, Barber was arrested in Santa Cruz County, California. He eventually was transferred to federal custody in Los Angeles, where he remains.
United States District Judge Otis D. Wright II scheduled a March 4, 2024 sentencing hearing, at which time Barber will face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for each wire fraud count, and a statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the criminal contempt count.
Zimmerle pleaded guilty in January 2022 to one count of wire fraud. In his plea agreement, Zimmerle admitted to participating in the BNZ Capital scam and that he received and kept approximately $582,815 of victim investor money. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for January 22, 2024.
In October 2021, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil lawsuit against Barber, Zimmerle and BNZ Capital for fraudulently raising more than $13 million from over 100 retail investors.
The FBI is investigating this matter. The SEC provided substantial assistance.
Assistant United States Attorney Bradley E. Marrett of the Santa Ana Branch Office is prosecuting this case.
A repeat offender who prosecutors say was attempting to take over the illicit drug market in Columbus, Georgia, by obtaining methamphetamine, cocaine, and high grade marijuana from California was found guilty by a jury yesterday of drug trafficking resulting from Operation Sweet Silence, a multi-agency law enforcement effort in the community conducted as part of Operation Take Back America, the Department of Justice’s nationwide effort cracking down on criminal organizations and cartels.Marquez Holloway, aka “Glizzy,” 32, was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine and more than 50 kilograms of marijuana following a two-day trial. The defendant faces a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 24, 2026.“The jury convicted the defendant of working across state lines to traffic dangerous drugs — methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana — into his community,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti. “These poisonous drugs drive violence and addiction. The Criminal Division will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute drug traffickers to restore a sense of safety to neighborhoods throughout the country.”“Illegal drugs pouring into our communities from dangerous cartels pose a serious threat to the safety of our nation,” said U.S. Attorney William R. “Will” Keyes for the Middle District of Georgia. “Here in the Middle District of Georgia, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our local, state and federal law enforcement partners to dismantle criminal organizations and hold their associates accountable.”“Illicit drugs devastate our communities, resulting in significant suffering by those addicted and their families,” said Special Agent in Charge Paul Brown of the FBI Atlanta Field Office. “We will continue to work with our federal, state and local partners to prevent this poison from finding its way onto our streets.”“The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is deploying all resources available to combat criminal organizations that are destroying our communities with drugs, guns and violence,” said Special Agent in Charge Rob Murphy of the DEA Atlanta Division. “This repeat offender’s actions show a deliberate attempt to seize control of an illicit drug market and expand the harm these substances inflict on our communities. DEA will not allow individuals like this to profit from addiction and violence. We will continue working with our partners to disrupt their operations and bring them to justice.”“This is a huge victory for the citizens we serve,” said Muscogee County Sheriff Greg Countryman. “There is strength in collaboration when we combine our resources to go after criminal enterprises involving street gangs, drug dealers and convicted felons. We will continue this fight for safer streets and a safer community.”According to court documents and statements referenced at trial, federal and local law enforcement conducted Operation Sweet Silence from Aug. 2022 until May 2024, an extensive investigation into the illegal activities of the Zohannon criminal street gang involving armed drug trafficking. During this extensive investigation, agents discovered that Holloway, who is not a member of the Zohannon organization, was working with others to take control of the illegal drug market in Columbus by supplying exceptionally high-grade marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine from California.Between September and December 2023, Holloway obtained at least 110 pounds of marijuana to sell in Columbus. Evidence revealed Holloway was sold a kilogram of cocaine and attempted to obtain methamphetamine for distribution in the community during this time. Holloway is a repeat offender, with a prior state conviction in Georgia for drug trafficking.This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).The case was investigated by the FBI, the DEA, and the Muscogee County Sheriff’s Office with critical assistance from the Harris County Sheriff’s Office; the Russell County, Alabama, Sheriff’s Office; the Coweta County Sheriff’s Office; the Sacramento County, California, Sheriff’s Office; and the Muscogee County District Attorney’s Office.Trial Attorney Matthew P. Mattis of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section (VCRS) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Veronica Hansis for the Middle District of Georgia are prosecuting the case.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Daniel B. Brubaker, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced today that SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, of Orange County, California, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud in connection with a fraudulent foreclosure rescue scheme that took in at least $5 million in prohibited advance fees from thousands of financially distressed homeowners. RODRIGUEZ pled guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As he admitted today, for years, Sergio Lorenzo Rodriguez took advantage of desperate homeowners who were facing foreclosure and eviction to collect from them, in the aggregate, millions of dollars in advance fees based on promises that Rodriguez knew he could not, or would not, keep. He exploited the financial vulnerability of his victims and is now being held accountable for his crime.”
According to the Complaint, the Indictment,[1] and statements made in court, and publicly available documents:
From approximately mid-2015 through August 2020, SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ and a co-conspirator (the Defendants) owned and/or managed a series of mortgage modification companies through which they perpetrated a scheme to defraud and attempt to defraud financially distressed consumers who were facing or were at imminent risk of foreclosure through deceptive marketing practices. Those companies included American Home Servicing Center, National Advocacy Center, National Advocacy Group, and Capital Home Advocacy Center (collectively, the “Companies”). The Defendants tricked desperate homeowners into paying thousands of dollars each in prohibited advance fees through various misrepresentations, including: falsely claiming that the homeowners had been pre-approved by their lender or servicer for a mortgage modification; misrepresenting prohibited advance fees as closing costs or other non-prohibited costs; fraudulently claiming that the Companies achieved success rates of 95 percent or higher for mortgage modifications; and making empty promises of a no-risk money back guarantee. As a result of their intentional misrepresentations, and misrepresentations that they encouraged their subordinates to make, the Defendants induced thousands of homeowners to pay, in the aggregate, millions of dollars in prohibited advance fees to the Companies, including a large number of consumers who were ultimately denied mortgage modifications or who received modification offers that were less favorable than they had been led to expect at the time they paid advance fees.
In February 2018, the Federal Trade Commission brought a civil lawsuit against the Defendants, among others, in federal court in Santa Ana, California. That civil action resulted first in a temporary restraining order and then a permanent injunction barring the Defendants from marketing and selling all debt relief products and services. As alleged in the Indictment, the Defendants flouted those judicial orders by having a relative create another mortgage modification company named 1st Premier Asset Solutions, which the Defendants operated using aliases and some of the same deceptive practices.
* * *
SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, 47, of Laguna Niguel, California, pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.
The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Williams praised the outstanding and persistent investigative work of the United States Postal Inspection Service and thanked the Federal Trade Commission for their assistance.
The prosecution of this case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Lai is in charge of the prosecution.
[1] As to Rodriguez’s co-defendant Eva Christine Rodriguez, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the descriptions of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Audrey Strauss, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and George M. Crouch Jr., Special Agent-in-Charge of the Newark Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced today the unsealing of an Indictment charging DILLON JORDAN, a/k/a “Daniel Jordan,” a/k/a “Daniel Maurice Hatton, a/k/a “Daniel Bohler, with conspiracy to violate the Mann Act, substantive Mann Act and Travel Act violations, and money laundering in connection with operating a prostitution business and laundering the proceeds of that prostitution business through two front companies – a purported party and event planning company and an actual movie production company. JORDAN was arrested today in San Bernardino County, California, and will be presented today in the Central District of California.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As alleged, for years, Dillon Jordan operated an extensive and far-reaching prostitution business, using a purported event planning company and a movie production company to conceal the proceeds he made from exploiting women. Now the party is over and the film is a wrap.”
FBI Special Agent-in-Charge George M. Crouch Jr. said: “This defendant apparently thought he could hide his alleged criminal dealings behind a supposedly legitimate business. But the FBI, in its mission to protect our citizens, uses every tool at its disposal to unmask those who violate federal law and assist the impacted victims. We encourage anyone who was victimized by this defendant, and anyone with additional information, to contact our Newark field office.”
As alleged in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]
From in or about 2010 through at least in or about May 2017, JORDAN operated a prostitution business throughout the United States and abroad. JORDAN maintained a roster of women who resided around the United States and who, in exchange for payment, performed sexual acts for JORDAN’s clients at locations throughout the United States, including the Southern District of New York, and abroad. JORDAN communicated with the clients of his prostitution business by email to coordinate the prostitution services, which included sending to clients photos of women who were available for hire for prostitution services, discussing the price of prostitution services, and overseeing travel logistics for women to travel to engage in prostitution. At times, JORDAN himself arranged the interstate travel from the women to engage in prostitution, and at other times, clients, at JORDAN’s direction, arranged the interstate travel for the women whom JORDAN directed to those clients. To facilitate his prostitution business, JORDAN also coordinated with a United Kingdom-based madam by sharing and referring customers and prostitutes.
JORDAN primarily managed the finances of the prostitution business through two front companies – a purported party and event planning company and a movie production company – incorporated in California. JORDAN opened multiple bank accounts for these companies, which he used to accept cash, wire, and check payments for prostitution services from clients and to pay for the expenses of the prostitution business, including paying the women for their prostitution services by cash and check. By using the two front companies to receive deposits from the prostitution business, JORDAN ensured that transactions involving those proceeds from the prostitution business would disguise the nature, source, and origin of those proceeds.
* * *
JORDAN, 49, of Lake Arrowhead, California, is charged with: one count of conspiracy to violate the Mann Act, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of enticement, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of use of interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; and one count of money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The statutory maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge.
We urge anyone who feels she may be a victim of, or have information related to, the conduct in this case to please contact the FBI at NK-Victim-Assistance@fbi.gov or (973) 792-3000.
Ms. Strauss praised the investigative work of the FBI. This case is being handled by the Office’s Money Laundering and Transnational Criminal Enterprises Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Cecilia E. Vogel is in charge of the prosecution.
The allegations in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Office of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced today that EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, mother and son, of Orange County, California, were arrested and charged with wire fraud offenses in connection with a fraudulent foreclosure rescue scheme that took in more than $5 million in prohibited advance fees from thousands of financially distressed homeowners.
Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said: “As alleged, Eva Christine Rodriguez and Sergio Lorenzo Rodriguez preyed on vulnerable homeowners at risk of foreclosure by making false and misleading promises that they knew they would not or could not keep. They allegedly continued to do so even after they were barred from the debt relief industry by a federal court in California. They now face serious criminal charges.”
USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said: “Loan Modification Scams are a cruel fraud targeting very desperate homeowners faced with losing their homes. While a loan modification may appear to be a lifeline, these scams often become a nightmare. This is allegedly what happened to victims who did business with Eva and Sergio Rodriguez. Postal Inspectors remain on alert for fraud scams targeting consumers, bringing fraudsters to justice worldwide.”
According to the Complaint[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:
From approximately March 2014 through April 2018, EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ (the “Defendants”) owned and/or managed a series of mortgage modification companies through which they perpetrated a scheme to defraud and attempt to defraud financially distressed consumers who were facing or were at imminent risk of foreclosure through deceptive marketing practices. Those companies were National Servicing Center, American Home Servicing Center, National Advocacy Center, National Advocacy Group, and Capital Home Advocacy Center (collectively, the “Companies”). Among other ways, the Defendants charged desperate homeowners thousands of dollars in prohibited advance fees by tricking them into believing that they had been pre-approved by their lender or servicer for a mortgage modification; falsely represented prohibited advance fees to be closing costs or other non-prohibited costs; fraudulently claimed that the Companies achieved success rates of 95 percent or higher for mortgage modifications; and made empty promises of a no-risk money back guarantee. As a result of their intentional misrepresentations, and misrepresentations that they encouraged their subordinates to make, the Defendants induced thousands of homeowners to pay an aggregate of more than $5 million in prohibited advance fees to the Companies, including a large number of consumers who were ultimately denied mortgage modifications or who received modification offers that were less favorable than they had been led to expect at the time they paid advance fees.
In February 2018, the Federal Trade Commission brought a civil lawsuit against EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ, among others, in federal court in Santa Ana, California. That civil action resulted first in a temporary restraining order and then a permanent injunction barring EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ from marketing and selling all debt relief products and services. As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendants flouted those judicial orders by having a relative create another mortgage modification company named 1st Premier Asset Solutions, which the Defendants operated using aliases and some of the same deceptive practices.
EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ and SERGIO LORENZO RODRIGUEZ will be presented in federal court in Santa Ana later today.
* * *
EVA CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ, 65, of Laguna Hills, California, and SERGIO LORENZO LAWRENCE, 46, of Laguna Niguel, California, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of wire fraud. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Ms. Strauss praised the investigative work of the USPIS and thanked the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Trustee for Region 5 for their assistance.
This case is being handled by the Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Lai is in charge of the prosecution.
If you believe you are a potential victim of this fraud, please contact Postal Inspector Brandy King-Gonzalez of the USPIS at bnking-gonzalez@uspis.gov, or (212) 330-5252.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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
DETROIT - Eight residents of Michigan and California were charged for their alleged roles in a $6 million fraud scheme targeting multiple pandemic relief programs, announced United States Attorney Dawn N. Ison.
Joining in the announcement were Special Agent in Charge James A. Tarasca of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Detroit Field Office, Special Agent in Charge Irene Lidlow of the Chicago Region of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General and Acting Special Agent in Charge Brady Ipock of the Central Region of the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of the Inspector General.
Deangelo Jackson-Portwood, 40, of Livonia; Anton Greenwood, 37, of Detroit; Adartha Tillman, 39, of Eastpointe; Timothy Boyle, 55, of Los Angeles County, California; Tyrone Boyle, 55, of Los Angeles County, California; Christopher Lindsay, 36, of Detroit; Taurean Davis, 41, of Detroit; and Maurice Brown-Portwood, 33, of Van Buren Township, were charged in an indictment with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
According to the indictment, the defendants caused fraudulent unemployment insurance claims, fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, and fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster Loan applications to be submitted for numerous individuals and business entities. Those applications are alleged to have misrepresented applicant information, including the identity of the applicant and eligibility for relief. Many of the applications were submitted in the names of identity theft victims. According to court records, the defendants received over $6 million in fraudulently obtained funds as a result of the scheme.
U.S. Attorney Ison stated: “Today’s indictment alleges a massive scheme to defraud taxpayers across a number of pandemic relief programs. The conduct as alleged is brazen and targeted programs designed to help our nation through an unprecedented public health crisis. My Office is fully committed to prosecuting all of those who lined their pockets at the expense of the public.”
"An important part of the mission of the Office of Inspector General is to investigate allegations of fraud involving unemployment insurance programs. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to aggressively investigate these types of allegations," said Irene Lindow, Special Agent-in-Charge, Great Lakes Region, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General.
"The defendants arrested today include the leaders of this criminal conspiracy that targeted relief programs during the pandemic," said James A. Tarasca, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Detroit Field Office. "The FBI and our law enforcement partners will continue this investigation until those who participated in this scheme are brought to justice."
“Providing false information to fraudulently gain access to pandemic relief funds is a theft of taxpayer funds,” said SBA OIG’s Central Region Acting Special Agent in Charge Brady Ipock. “OIG remains committed to rooting out bad actors and protecting the integrity of SBA programs. I want to thank the Department of Justice and our law enforcement partners for their dedication and pursuit of justice.”
An indictment is not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
The defendants face up to twenty years in prison based on the wire fraud conspiracy charge and a consecutive two years in prison for the aggravated identity theft charge.
This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of Labor – Office of the Inspector General.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys John K. Neal and Alyse Wu
DETROIT – A State of Washington man was sentenced to 12 ½ years in prison for his role in an armed drug conspiracy that amassed nearly 200 pounds of methamphetamine and other controlled substances, United States Attorney Dawn N. Ison announced.Ison was joined in the announcement by Orville O. Greene, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) and Rodney Hopkins, Inspector in Charge of the Detroit Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS).Antonio D.J. Mitchell, 39, of Seattle, Washington was sentenced to 150 months in prison by United States District Judge Linda V. Parker.According to court documents, DEA and USPIS agents learned through their investigation that Keith Haskins had been mailing kilograms of methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine from California to his associate in Detroit, Kennie Smith. Federal agents intercepted several of these parcels, many of which contained drugs packaged inside of plastic buckets from a hardware store chain. Smith then managed distribution in the Detroit area from several of his properties.Haskins later recruited Mitchell to assist with transporting drugs and drug proceeds between the southwestern United States and Michigan. Haskins and Mitchell eventually moved to Detroit and expanded their operations. The pair rented a storage unit and a downtown apartment where, in November 2021, agents found over 87 kilograms of methamphetamine, 3 kilograms of fentanyl, one kilogram of cocaine, seven firearms, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, including a drum-style magazine. Four members of the conspiracy were charged in federal court. Haskins, Smith, and Mitchell each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine, as well as possessing or attempting to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. Haskins, 47, of San Bernardino County, California, was previously sentenced to 18 years in prison. Smith, 46, of Clinton Township, Michigan, received 125 months in prison. The fourth defendant, Chalisa Sawyer, is awaiting trial set for January 28, 2025.“We will tirelessly pursue and prosecute drug dealers who continue to inflict harm on our communities with dangerous drugs like methamphetamine and fentanyl, whether near or far,” U.S. Attorney Ison said. “The sentences imposed in this case, should underscore that goal. I commend our law enforcement partners at DEA and USPIS whose hard work helped achieve these significant results.”“At the time of his arrest, Mr. Mitchell and his co-conspirators were in possession of more than 87 kilograms of methamphetamine, 3 kilograms of fentanyl, and other illicit drugs. The fentanyl alone could provide a deadly dosage to 1.5 million people,” said Special Agent in Charge Orville. “DEA remains committed to dismantling criminal organizations who exchange lives for monetary gain and blatantly ignore the laws of this nation.”“The sentences handed down thus far for these co-conspirators underscore the seriousness of the crimes at hand and the resolve with which we strive to secure the nation’s mail system and keep our customers and communities safe,” said Inspector in Charge Hopkins. “Crucial to the success of this mission are the relationships we maintain with partners at all levels. We would like to express sincere appreciation the DEA’s Detroit Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan for their tireless work with us to achieve a successful outcome in this investigation.”This case was investigated by special agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and inspectors from the United States Postal Inspection Service. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Franzinger.This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Branson man pleaded guilty in federal court today to threatening over the internet to injure employees of the Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff’s Department.
Joshua L. Bippert, 27, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge M. Douglas Harpool to one count of transmitting a threat across state lines to injure another person.
By pleading guilty today, Bippert admitted that he communicated the threat over the internet to the sheriff’s department on Sept. 20, 2020. Bippert sent a private message in response to a social media post on the department’s Instagram account. The Instagram post documented the arrest of a felon in possession of a firearm. Bippert wrote: “Recently a couple of your officers arrested a man for owning a firearm. If you want more of your officers to end up like the two that got shot while sitting in their patrol car then go ahead and keep the charges. Release the man who did nothing wrong but keep his second amendment rights or there will be blood. This is a threat.” (sic) Bippert’s message presumably referred to the Sept. 12, 2020, ambush by a gunman on two sheriff’s deputies sitting in their patrol car.
The next day, Bippert commented on the sheriff’s department post: “for me, the most irritating part is living in the midwest and not on the border to California where I could take a nice short drive to water the tree of liberty.” (sic)
Investigators also saw a post from Bippert in which he tagged the sheriff’s department: “Forget the constitution. We need to end gun control by any means necessary. Yes I do mean violence.” (sic)
Under federal statutes, Bippert is subject to a sentence of up to five years in federal prison without parole. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Clark. It was investigated by the FBI, the Taney County, Mo., Sheriff’s Department, and the Los Angeles County, Calif., Sheriff’s Department.
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Branson, Missouri, man has been indicted for threatening on the internet to injure employees of the Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff’s Department.
Joshua L. Bippert, 26, was charged in a single-count indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury in Springfield, Mo., on March 23, 2021. The indictment was unsealed and made public on Tuesday, March 30, following Bippert’s arrest and initial court appearance.
The federal indictment alleges that Bippert communicated the threat over the internet to the Sheriff’s Department between Sept. 20 and 21, 2020.
The charge contained in this indictment is simply an accusation, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charge must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Clark. It was investigated by the FBI and the Los Angeles County, Calif., Sheriff’s Department.
SAN FRANCISCO – A federal grand jury indicted Harwood Francis McCovey for his alleged role in four bank robberies and the armed robbery of a Shell Gas Station in HumboldtCounty, announced Acting United States Attorney Alex. G. Tse and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett.
According to the indictment, in the summer of 2016, McCovey, 33, of Hoopa, Calif., committed four bank robberies and a robbery of a Shell Gas Station. McCovey is alleged to have used a dangerous weapon in the commission of each robbery. The alleged robberies occurred on the following dates and locations:
July 20, 2016 – Bank in Eureka, CA
July 27, 2016 – Credit union in Eureka, CA
July 31, 2016 – Shell Gas Station in McKinleyville, CA
August 4, 2016 – Credit union in Eureka, CA
August 12, 2016 – Bank in Fortuna, CA
In sum, McCovey was charged with four counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and one count of robbery affecting interstate commerce (Hobbs Act robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
An indictment merely alleges that crimes have been committed, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, the defendant faces a maximum statutory penalty of 25 years in prison for each bank robbery and 20 years in prison for the Hobbs Act robbery charge. Additional fines, forfeitures, restitution, and special assessments also may be imposed. However, any sentence after conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
The defendant currently is in state custody and will be transferred to federal custody to appear on these charges. A hearing for defendant’s arraignment has not yet been scheduled.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Randy Leonard is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Marina Ponomarchuk. The prosecution is the result of investigations by the Eureka Police Department, the Fortuna Police Department, and the HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office with support from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Eureka Resident Agency.
SAN FRANCISCO – Shayne Gregory Maupin was sentenced today to 36 months in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett.
Maupin, 27, of HumboldtCounty, Calif., pleaded guilty on May 14, 2019, to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). According to his plea agreement, on January 2, 2019, Maupin possessed a Romarm WASR-10 assault rifle, with a 30-round magazine, loaded with 7.62 x 39 mm ammunition, inserted into it. Maupin further admitted he possessed additional equipment including a 10-round magazine loaded with 7.62 x 39 mm ammunition, additional rounds of ammunition, and a camouflage body vest. Maupin admitted that at the time he possessed these items, he already had been convicted of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and therefore he was not eligible to possess a firearm.
On February 7, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Maupin charging him with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition, both in violation 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pursuant to his plea agreement, Maupin pleaded guilty to the firearm charge. The ammunition charge was dismissed at sentencing.
The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Richard Seeborg, U.S. District Judge. Judge Seeborg also sentenced the defendant to a three-year period of supervised release. The defendant will begin serving the sentence immediately.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Lina Peng is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Margoth Turcios. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI with assistance from the Arcata Police Department.
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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Judson Allen Stiglich was sentenced in federal court today to 120 months in prison for possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute the drug and possession of a firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking, announced U.S. Attorney Alex G. Tse and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett. The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Susan Illston, U.S. District Judge.
Stiglich, 36, of Eureka, pleaded guilty to the charges on June 22, 2018. According to his plea agreement, Stiglich admitted that on December 7, 2017, he possessed nearly a half-pound of methamphetamine and a loaded gun. On that day, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at his home and found over 200 grams of 100% pure ice methamphetamine; Stiglich acknowledged that he intended to sell the drugs. During the search of his residence, law enforcement officers also found $2409 in cash and drug distribution paraphernalia, including a digital scale with methamphetamine residue. Stiglich acknowledged he knowingly possessed all the items and further admitted that in the weeks leading up to December 7, 2017, he sent text messages from his phone both to set up drug transactions and to discuss his debt to a drug supplier.
Further, according to his plea agreement, Stiglich admitted he possessed a .357 revolver loaded with four rounds of ammunition to further his drug dealing. Stiglich admitted that among the reasons he possessed the weapon were to protect himself, his drugs, and his money.
On March 1, 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Stiglich charging him with one count each of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B); possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Stiglich pleaded guilty to the first two charges.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Illston ordered Stiglich to serve a 4-year term of supervised release. Stiglich has been in custody since his arrest on December 7, 2017, and will begin serving his sentence immediately.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ravi T. Narayan is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Kimberly Richardson. The prosecution is the result of an investigation conducted by the FBI and the HumboldtCounty Drug Task Force.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
SAN FRANCISCO – A HumboldtCounty resident was sentenced today to 120 months in federal prison for attempting to coerce and entice a minor to engage in sexual activity. U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley handed down the sentence.Joseph Raymond Shinn, 47, of Ferndale, Calif., was indicted by a federal grand jury on Feb. 19, 2025, and pleaded guilty on Nov. 5, 2025, to one count of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor. According to the plea agreement, between Sept. 30, 2024, through Oct. 6, 2024, Shinn messaged an individual whom he believed to be a 13-year-old minor, sending sexually explicit messages and images via a messaging application. He eventually arranged a meeting with the minor to engage in sexual acts. On his way to the minor’s home, Shinn purchased sex paraphernalia that he intended to use. Shinn was arrested by law enforcement upon his arrival at the home.United States Attorney Craig H. Missakian and FBI Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani made the announcement.Shinn has been in custody since November 2024. He will begin serving his prison term immediately. In addition to the prison term, Judge Corley also ordered Shinn to serve eight years of supervised release which will begin after his term of imprisonment.Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara E. Henderson is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Soana Katoa. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the HumboldtCounty District Attorney’s Office and the FBI, with assistance from the Eureka Police Department and HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office.
SAN FRANCISCO – Joshua Wentworth was sentenced to 77 months in prison for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett. The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, U.S. District Judge.
Wentworth, 31 of Eureka, pleaded guilty to the charge on October 16, 2019. According to the plea agreement, Wentworth admitted that on May 12, 2019, he possessed seven firearms, including two AR-15 assault rifles and one pistol with an attached Glock switch conversion device. According to documents filed by the government during sentencing, the conversion device made the pistol operate as a fully automatic firearm. In addition to the firearms, Wentworth admitted he possessed over 400 rounds of ammunition, some of which were loaded in various high-capacity magazines, including two 30-round magazines for the assault rifles and a 50-round drum magazine for a .40 caliber pistol. Wentworth also admitted that at the time he possessed the weapons and ammunition, he was a convicted felon and therefore was ineligible to possess the items.
A federal grand jury indicted Wentworth on August 20, 2019, charging him with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Wentworth pleaded guilty to the charge.
At the sentencing hearing, Judge Breyer described the nature of the firearms found in the Wentworth’s possession as “scary.” In addition, the government’s sentencing memorandum highlighted text messages in which Wentworth discussed purchasing firearms, his efforts to locate a trailer with a large amount of cash in it, driving to San Francisco to find a “target,” and his need to borrow another person’s bullet proof vest.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Breyer sentenced the defendant to a 3-year period of supervised release and ordered him to pay a $100 special assessment. Wentworth is in federal custody and will begin serving his sentence immediately.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick O’Brien is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Morgan Byrne. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI, the HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office, and the HumboldtCounty District Attorney’s Office.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Judson Allen Stiglich pleaded guilty in federal court today to possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute the drug and possession of a firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Alex G. Tse and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett. The guilty plea was accepted by the Honorable Susan Illston, U.S. District Judge.
According to his plea agreement, Stiglich, 36, of Eureka, admitted he was a methamphetamine dealer. Further, on December 7, 2017, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at his home and found over 200 grams of 100% pure ice methamphetamine; Stiglich acknowledged he intended to sell the drugs. During the search of his residence, the law enforcement officers also found $2409.00 in cash and drug distribution paraphernalia, including a digital scale with methamphetamine residue. Stiglich acknowledged he knowingly possessed all the items and further admitted that in the weeks leading up to December 7, 2017, he sent text messages from his phone both to set up drug transactions and to discuss his debt to a drug supplier.
Further, Stiglich admitted he possessed a .357 revolver loaded with four rounds of ammunition to further his drug dealing. Stiglich admitted that among the reasons he possessed the weapon were to protect himself, his drugs, and his money.
On March 1, 2018, a federal grand jury indicted Stiglich charging him with one count each of possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B); possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Pursuant to today’s plea agreement, Stiglich pleaded guilty to the first two charges. The felon in possession charge will be dismissed at the time of sentencing if Stiglich complies with the terms of the plea agreement.
Stiglich was arrested on December 7, 2017, and has been in custody since that time. Judge Illston scheduled his sentencing for November 2, 2018. Stiglich faces a statutory maximum of 40 years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000,000 for the drug distribution charge. In addition, Stiglich faces a mandatory minimum statutory sentence of 5 years in prison for the drug distribution charge as well as an additional consecutive 5-year minimum prison term for possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug distribution. The court may also order additional fines and supervised release. However, any sentence following conviction will be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ravi T. Narayan is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Kimberly Richardson. The prosecution is the result of an investigation conducted by the FBI and the HumboldtCounty Drug Task Force.
SAN FRANCISCO – Harwood Francis McCovey was sentenced today to 66 months in prison for committing multiple armed robberies, announced United States Attorney David L. Anderson and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge John Bennett. The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge.
McCovey, 34, of Hoopa, Calif., pleaded guilty to the robberies on October 16, 2018. According to his plea agreement, in the summer of 2016, McCovey robbed the following three banks and gas station, all while using a dangerous weapon:
On July 20, 2016, McCovey robbed a bank in Eureka.
On July 27, 2016, McCovey robbed a credit union in Eureka.
On July 31, 2016, McCovey robbed a gas station in McKinleyville and absconded with money, cigarettes, and lighters.
On August 4, 2016, McCovey returned to the credit union in Eureka that he had robbed on July 27, 2016, and robbed it again.
On August 12, 2016, McCovey robbed a bank in Fortuna.
A federal grand jury indicted McCovey on March 27, 2018, charging him with four counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and one count of robbery affecting interstate commerce (Hobbs Act robbery), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). McCovey pleaded guilty to all five counts.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Chhabria ordered McCovey to serve 5 years of supervised release and to pay $38,486.75 in restitution. McCovey has been in custody since his arrest and will begin serving his sentence immediately.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sailaja Paidipaty is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Marina Ponomarchuk. The prosecution is the result of investigations by the Eureka Police Department, the Fortuna Police Department, and the HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office with support from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Eureka Resident Agency.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
SAN FRANCISCO– Eric Lundin was sentenced today to 84 months in prison for use and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence announced United States Attorney Brian J. Stretch and FBI Special Agent in Charge John F. Bennett. The sentence follows a guilty plea entered November 10, 2016, in which Lundin admitting using the weapon to enhance or maintain his status with the racketeering enterprise of the Mongols Motorcycle Club.
According to his guilty plea, Lundin, 67, of Arcadia, Calif., admitted that on April 22, 2013, he used a Colt .38 caliber revolver and a semi-automatic handgun to instill fear in, intimidate, and detain a female kidnapping victim. Lundin admitted that he targeted the victim at least in part because he believed his daughter and his home had been robbed by an associate of a relative of the victim. Lundin believed it was important to maintain respect for the Mongols, and his status as a member, by responding to the robbery. Lundin acknowledged that during the course of the kidnapping, his victim was trapped in the vehicle and he stated “Mongols don’t leave witnesses.”
The sentence was handed down by the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, U.S. District Judge. In addition to the prison term, Judge Tigar also imposed a term of three years of supervised release during which time he may not associate with any members of the Mongols. The defendant currently is in custody and will begin serving the sentence immediately.
Assistant United States Attorneys William Frentzen and Zinzi Bonilla are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Bridget Kilkenny. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Arcada Police Department, and the HumboldtCounty Sherriff’s Office.
SAN FRANCISCO – Richard Rood was sentenced today to 150 months in prison for possession of child pornography, announced United States Attorney Alex G. Tse and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge John Bennett. The sentence was handed down by the Honorable William H. Alsup, United States District Judge.
Rood, 74, of Eureka, pleaded guilty to the charge on September 4, 2018. According to the plea agreement, Rood admitted he used publicly available computers at the HumboldtCounty Library to locate, view, and save images and videos depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Rood saved the images and videos to his personal email accounts and he also emailed the images and videos to his cellular phone. Using email, Rood also traded images and videos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct with others. He admitted that he possessed 230 images and 10 videos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Some of the images and videos, Rood admitted, depicted sadistic or masochistic portrayals of minors as young as 5 years of age. Further, Rood admitted he obtained and sent images to minors by email.
A federal grand jury indicted Rood on May 31, 2018, charging him with one count each of distribution, receipt and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252(a)(4)(B). Pursuant to his plea agreement, Rood pleaded guilty to the possession charge and the remaining charges were dismissed. The possession charge, in light of Rood’s history, carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months in prison.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Alsup sentenced the defendant to a 10-year period of supervised release. Rood already is a registered sex offender. The defendant has been in custody since his arrest in July of 2018 and will begin serving his sentence immediately.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan U. Lee is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Kimberly Richardson. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the HumboldtCounty Sheriff’s Office.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
SAN FRANCISCO – Warren Herman Sloan was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for attempting to distribute, and possessing with the intent to distribute, fentanyl on the Hoopa Valley Tribe Indian Reservation, announced United States Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan, and Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent in Charge Wade R. Shannon. The sentence was handed down by United States District Judge Susan Illston.
Sloan, 25, formerly of Hoopa Valley in HumboldtCounty, pleaded guilty to the charges on February 15, 2022. In his plea agreement, Sloan admitted that in early 2021 he engaged in distributing drugs for profit on the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Sloan further admitted that on March 29, 2021, he attempted to meet with his drug supplier to obtain narcotics which he planned to resell for profit on the Hoopa reservation. He acknowledged in the plea agreement that he intended to purchase approximately 120 counterfeit pharmaceutical pills for $1,700. During that meeting, police officers arrived and arrested Sloan. Sloan stated in his plea agreement that he now knows the counterfeit pills he was purchasing contained fentanyl.
In a memorandum filed with the court for Sloan’s sentencing, the government pointed out additional facts relevant to the sentence Sloan should receive. Specifically, the government argued that two young women, one 19 years old and the other 20, tragically died from fentanyl overdoses in Hoopa Valley in the early months of 2021. The government pointed out that in his plea agreement Sloan admitted he was aware that on March 5, 2021 – two weeks before his arrest – the 19 year old woman, whom he knew from the reservation, died from a drug overdose and that he heard the overdose was caused by counterfeit pharmaceutical pills laced with fentanyl. Sloan nevertheless continued to sell – and was one of only a few sellers of – counterfeit pills in Hoopa Valley.
In addition to the 24-month prison term, U.S. District Judge Illston ordered Sloan to serve three years of supervised release following release from federal prison.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ross E. Weingarten prosecuted the case. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI, DEA, and the HumboldtCounty Drug Task Force.
One Pill Can Kill: Fentanyl, a Schedule II controlled substance, is a highly potent opiate that can be diluted with cutting agents to create counterfeit pills that purport to mimic the effects of Oxycodone, Percocet, and other drugs but can typically be obtained at a lower cost than the genuine drugs. However, very small variations in the amount or quality of fentanyl can have huge effects on the potency of the counterfeit pills, and with lethal consequences. Fentanyl has now become the leading cause of drug overdose deaths in the United States. Counterfeit, fentanyl-laced pills are commonly shaped and colored to resemble pills that are sold legitimately at pharmacies. For example, counterfeit pills known as M30s mimic Oxycodone, but contain fentanyl. These tablets are round and often light blue in color, though they come in many colors, and have “M” and “30” imprinted on opposite sides of the pill.
SAN FRANCISCO – The Clearlake Oaks County Water District (District), located in Lake County, California, has agreed to pay approximately $1.6 million to resolve claims that it failed to repay federal and state grant funds that it received, but was not entitled to keep.
In February 2017, severe winter storms, flooding, and mudslides affected California counties statewide. In June, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared a major disaster and allowed eligible entities, including public entities, to apply for assistance in the form of reimbursement for disaster-related expenses from FEMA and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). One such applicant was the District, a county water district formed pursuant to the California Water Code.
The United States alleges that following the District’s application for disaster relief funds, the District received reimbursements from FEMA and Cal OES for expenses for which the District had already been reimbursed by its insurer California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). The United States alleges further that the District knew the funds it received from FEMA and Cal OES were an overpayment, but instead of returning those funds, retained the funds in violation of the False Claims Act and state law. The United States alleges that the District knowingly concealed the funds and made false statements to the United States and Cal OES material to its obligation to return the funds. These false statements included quarterly reports in which the District stated that it had not received excess funds and project closeout certifications in which the District claimed that it was entitled to the full dollar amount approved without deducting the amount it had already received from its insurer.
“FEMA disaster relief funds play a critical role in helping communities recover from natural disasters,” said U.S. Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey. “It is unacceptable for any entity, including a public entity, to divert funds from these programs through fraud and enrich itself at the expense of the American taxpayer. This Office will continue to pursue recipients of disaster relief funds that misused the program by retaining funds to which they were not entitled.”
Dr. Joseph V. Cuffari, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said, “DHS OIG is grateful for our collaboration with our partners in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. Together, we ensured that more than $1.1 million are repaid to the United States. We will continue to aggressively investigate and support the prosecution of these kinds of fraudsters to ensure that appropriated relief funds are accounted for and used for the purpose Congress intended.”
The total amount of the settlement to be paid is $1,589,725.50, plus interest. Of that amount, the District will pay $1,192,294.12 to the United States and $397,431.38 to Cal OES.
The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Nicole Mitchell, a former employee of the District. Under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Nicole Mitchell v. Clearlake Oaks County Water District, Case No. 1:20-cv-02388 (N.D. Cal.).
Assistant U.S. Attorney Savith Iyengar is handling this matter for the government, with assistance from Garland He. The investigation and settlement resulted from a coordinated effort by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and DHS-OIG.
The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating fraud in federal grants. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, can be reported to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General at www.oig.dhs.gov/hotline.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
SAN JOSE – Xavier Robledo was sentenced in federal court today to 96 months in prison for distributing fentanyl that caused overdoses in two people and killed one, announced United States Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent in Charge Wade R. Shannon. The sentence was handed down by United States District Judge Beth L. Freeman.
“M30 pills sold on the street are often laced with fentanyl, a cheap and deadly substitute,” said U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds. “These counterfeit pills mimic Oxycodone, but they can be killers in disguise. The mismeasurement of even a microgram of fentanyl can have lethal consequences. We urge all to stay away from fentanyl sold on the street in any form it takes.”
“The death and destruction caused by fentanyl knows no boundaries. From coast to coast this poison is devasting families,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Wade R. Shannon. “Holding accountable those, like Robledo, who ruin lives with their criminal actions is our priority.”
Robledo, 21, of Seaside in Monterey County, California, pleaded guilty on February 8, 2022, to two counts of distributing fentanyl. In his plea agreement, Robledo admitted that in mid- April 2020, Robledo sold counterfeit, fentanyl-laced pills known as “M30” pills. M30 pills are light blue and imprinted with an “M” on one side and “30” on the other. He arranged the sale of three fentanyl-laced M30 pills via cell phone messages to a customer to whom Robledo had previously sold M30s. This person is identified only as “Individual 1” in the plea agreement. Robledo admitted he personally delivered the M30 pills, which he knew contained fentanyl, to Individual 1 at his house. The M30 pills caused Individual 1 to suffer a fentanyl overdose, and law enforcement officers found Individual 1 in an unresponsive state. Individual 1 was later able to recover from his overdose.
Robledo further admitted in his plea agreement that in early May 2020, he again sold a counterfeit M30 that he knew contained fentanyl. He sold this M30 to a different individual identified in the plea agreement as “Individual 2.” Robledo knew Individual 2 because two weeks earlier Robledo sold and delivered drugs to Individual 2 at a drug rehabilitation facility where Robledo knew Individual 2 was undergoing treatment. In the early May sale, Robledo arranged the sale to Individual 2 using cell phone messages, and Robledo delivered the M30 to Individual 2 at his house. A few hours later Individual 2 ingested the M30 pill. It caused him to overdose on fentanyl. Law enforcement officers found Individual 2 in an unresponsive state and transported him to a hospital. Individual 2 continued to be unresponsive. On or about May 8, 2020, Individual 2 died. Robledo admitted in his plea agreement that Individual 2 died as a result of the fentanyl in the M30 that Robledo sold him.
In addition to the 96 month prison term, U.S. District Judge Beth L. Freeman ordered Robledo to pay restitution for, among other things, the funeral costs of Individual 2. In addition, Robledo was sentenced to serve three years of supervised release following release from federal prison.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christina Liu and Casey Boome prosecuted the case with the assistance of Linda Love and Mark DiCenzo. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by DEA and the Pacific Grove Police Department.
Fentanyl, a Schedule II controlled substance, is a highly potent opiate that can be diluted with cutting agents to create counterfeit pills that purport to mimic the effects of Oxycodone and can typically be obtained at a lower cost than genuine Oxycodone. However, small variations in the amount or quality of fentanyl can have significant effects on the potency of the counterfeit pills, raising the danger of overdoses. Fentanyl has become the leading cause of drug overdose deaths in the United States. In this case, the counterfeit, fentanyl-laced pills that Robledo distributed were shaped and colored to resemble Oxycodone pills that are sold legitimately in the marketplace. As in this case, counterfeit pills known as M30s are round tablets that are sometimes light blue and with “M” and “30” imprinted on opposite sides of the pill.
This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
Otilio Rodriguez Toledo and Alicia Aispuro Hernandez, husband and wife from Thermal, California, were sentenced today for conspiring to smuggle and distribute Mexican pesticides and veterinary drugs that are not approved for use in the United States. Toledo was sentenced to five months in prison followed by 24 months of supervised release. Hernandez was sentenced to time served followed by 18 months of supervised release. Both were ordered to jointly pay $2.19 million in forfeiture.“This case reflects our commitment to defend our southern border against those who traffic in unlawful substances that jeopardize the health and safety of Americans,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). “The Justice Department will hold accountable those who violate our environmental and customs laws, and we will ensure that they do not profit from their crimes.” “Selling illegal pesticides and veterinary drugs endangers people, animals, and the environment,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Gordon for the Southern District of California. “Our office will continue to prosecute those individuals who disregard the dangerous consequences of their illegal smuggling.”“Today’s sentencing sends a clear message that we will not tolerate the smuggling of unregistered pesticides. Defendants smuggled unregistered pesticides that are toxic to bees, and to humans,” said Deputy Assistant Administrator for Management Cecil Rodrigues of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Defendants deliberately put people at risk for their own profit and are now being held accountable for their egregious actions.”“The FDA regulates animal drugs as part of its mission to protect the public health, which includes ensuring that prescription animal drugs are lawfully distributed and dispensed pursuant to a valid prescription,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Wade Moon of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigations, Kansas City Field Office. “We will continue to pursue and bring to justice those who distribute prescription animal drugs unlawfully.”“There is a reason customs laws exist particularly when pesticides and chemicals are attempting to make their way into our country to potentially wreak havoc on our environment and potentially make people seriously ill,” said Special Agent in Charge Shawn Gibson for HSI San Diego. “Success of this investigation is directly attributed to the cooperation of multiple law enforcement agencies working together to ensure uncommon illegal substance don’t make their way into our nation causing irrecoverable damage.”According to filings and evidence presented in court, since at least December 2018, Toledo and Hernandez had engaged in smuggling pesticides and veterinary drugs from Mexico into the United States and then distributing them in the United States. The pesticides involved were primarily Taktic and Bovitraz, which are not registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in the United States. The smuggled veterinary drugs included Tetragent Aves, Metabolase, Terramicina, Cipio Vet, Baytril Max, Tylovet, Caterrol, Penicilina, and Tylosma, which are not approved by the FDA for use in the United States.The smuggled pesticides and veterinary drugs were brought into the United States through the Calexico Port of Entry in Imperial County, California, and placed in storage units near the border. Smugglers would then send photographs of the products at the storage units as proof of delivery. These defendants would then pick up the products from the storage units and distribute them to others within the United States.According to the EPA, the active ingredient in the pesticides Taktic and Bovitraz is amitraz, which is toxic to bees if released into hives, and then ultimately to humans when it ends up in honey, honeycomb, and beeswax. Misuse of amitraz-containing products in beehives can result in exposures that could cause neurological effects and possibly reproductive effects in humans from the consumption of contaminated honey. Signs of neurotoxicity from exposure to amitraz have been documented in multiple animal species and include central nervous system depression, decrease in pulse rate, and hypothermia.The EPA, FDA, and HSI investigated the case.Assistant Section Chief Stephen Da Ponte of ENRD’s Environmental Crimes Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Van Demark for the Southern District of California prosecuted the case.
KANSAS CITY, KAN. – Arraignments were held Monday in federal court in Kansas City, Kan., for some of 14 defendants charged with marijuana trafficking and money laundering, U.S. Attorney Stephen McAllister said.
A federal indictment alleges the defendants smuggled hundreds of pounds of marijuana from California and Colorado to be distributed in Kansas and laundered hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug proceeds.
Charges include drug trafficking conspiracy, money laundering, conspiracy, unlawful use of the U.S. Postal Service and maintaining a residence for the purpose of drug trafficking.
The following defendants are charged in a 25-count indictment:
Steven Martinez, 30, Rosamond, Calif.
Nickolas Vander Bruggen, 28, Hesperia, Calif.
George Garcia, 31, Rosamond, Calif.
Alonzo Cooper, 28, Kansas City, Kan.
Reginald Allen, 26, Kansas City, Kan.
Kayla Union, 22, Kansas City, Mo.
Akil Cooper, 26, Lancaster, Calif.
Marcus Joseph, 31, Lancaster, Calif.
Dominique Wilson, 24, Kansas City, Kan.
Mario Zelaya, 27, Los Angeles, Calif.
Trenton Smith, 29, Aurora, Colo.
Anthony Daniels, 58, Sacramento, Calif.
Daya Daniels, 46, Sacramento, Calif.
Barbara Haynes, 39, Littleton, Colo.
Upon conviction, the charges carry the following penalties:
Conspiracy: Not less than five years and not more than 40 years in federal prison and a fine up to $5 million.
Conspiracy to distribute marijuana: Up to five years and a fine up to $250,000.
Unlawful use of the Postal Service: Up to four years and a fine up to $250,000.
Maintaining drug-involved premises: Up to 20 years and a fine up to $500,000.
Money laundering: Up to 20 years and a fine up to $500,000.
The Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Unit, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Homeland Security Investigations, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Marshals Service, Dubuque (Iowa) Drug Task Force, Kern County (California) Sheriff’s Office and the La Habra (California) Police Department investigated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Trent Krug is prosecuting.
In all cases, defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. The indictments merely contain allegations of criminal conduct.
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
SHREVEPORT, La. – Three men found to be in the Western District of Louisiana illegally have been indicted by a federal grand jury in three separate cases, announced Acting United States Attorney Alexander C. Van Hook. Ariel Mauricio Zelaya-Pineda a/k/a Carlos Antonio Pineda Ramos, 39, a citizen of Honduras, was charged in a complaint on April 30, 2025, with one count of re-entry of a removed alien, was arrested, and is currently in federal custody. The indictment returned by the grand jury alleges that Zelaya-Pineda was found in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, after having been removed from the United States on six prior occasions. The indictment alleges that Zelaya-Pineda never obtained the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission to the United States. His prior removals are as follows:On or about April 27, 2009, at or near Columbus, Georgia;On or about November 10, 2010, at or near San Antonio, Texas;On or about May 27, 2013, at or near Dallas, Texas;On or about November 19, 2018, at or near Houston, Texas;On or about February 17, 2020, at or near Houston, Texas; andOn or about July 29, 2024, at or near Alexandria, Louisiana.If convicted, Zelaya-Pineda faces a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, and a fine of up to $250,000.This case is being investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Bossier City Police Department, and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Robin McCoy.The second immigration indictment charges Homero Arroyo-Ayala, 47, a citizen of Mexico, with one count each of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, re-entry of a removed alien, and possession of a firearm and ammunition by an illegal alien. The indictment alleges that on November 27, 2024, Arroyo-Ayala did possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine and possessed a 9mm “ghost gun” in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of a 9mm “ghost gun” and ammunition. It is alleged in the indictment that Arroyo-Ayala was found in Bossier Parish, Louisiana after having been denied admission to the United States and removed on July 16, 2003, at or near San Ysidro, California, and had never obtained the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission to the United States. A sentencing notice included in the indictment alleges that Arroyo-Ayala was convicted in the Supreme Court of California, County of Los Angeles, of possession for sale of a controlled substance, an aggravated felony, and was subsequently removed from the United States. He is subject to increased punishment as to the charge of re-entry of a removed illegal alien. If convicted, Arroyo-Ayala faces a total sentence of a minimum of 5 years up to life in prison, and a fine of up to $250,000.This case is being investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Louisiana State Police, and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney William Gaskins.The third immigration indictment charges Erik Alexis Valladares-Corea a/k/a Eric A. Valladares, 23, a citizen of Honduras, with one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by an illegal alien and one count of re-entry of a removed alien. Valladares was charged in a complaint on May 8, 2025, with one count of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien and one count of illegal re-entry of a removed alien, was arrested, and is currently in federal custody. The indictment returned by the grand jury alleges that Valladares illegally possessed a Beretta Model 950B .22 caliber pistol and ammunition. It is further alleged that Valladares was found to be in the United States after having been denied admission, excluded, deported and removed therefrom on or about May 29, 2020, at or near Alexandria, Louisiana. Valladares did not obtain the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission to the United States.If convicted, Valladares faces up to 15 years in prison, and a fine of up to $250,000. This case is being investigated by Homeland Security Investigations, a division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the Louisiana State Police, and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney William Gaskins.An indictment is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.# # #
United States Attorney Steven Russell announced that Julio Ayala, 33, of Sacramento, California, was sentenced today in federal court in Omaha, Nebraska, for conspiring to distribute marijuana. United States District Judge Brian C. Buescher sentenced Ayala to 18 months of imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system. After his release from prison, Ayala will begin a two-year term of supervised release.
Ayala was part of a marijuana conspiracy which existed between October of 2018 and December of 2020. As part of the conspiracy, individuals shipped marijuana from California to Omaha. Ayala was involved in the distribution of the marijuana in Omaha. On December 18, 2020, agents executed a search warrant at co-conspirator Marques Eiland’s residence and located approximately 22.5 pounds of marijuana. Ayala, Eiland, and co-conspirators Aarion Jenkins and Shawn Thomas were all present. Each of the conspirators have pleaded guilty. On May 3, 2023, Jenkins was sentenced to 40 months of imprisonment. This was in addition to 11 months he already served on related state and federal cases. On May 3, 2023, Eiland was sentenced to 31 months of imprisonment. Thomas is pending sentencing.
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Omaha Police Department, the Bellevue Police Department, and the Sacramento CaliforniaCounty Sheriff’s Department.
