Score:   1
Docket Number:   MD-FL  8:18-cr-00468
Case Name:   USA v. Shah et al
  Press Releases:
Tampa, FL – U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington has sentenced Sharvil Patel (23, Tampa) to seven years and six months in federal prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, relating to his participation in an India-based call center scam. As part of his sentence, the court also entered a money judgment of $80,000.

Patel had pleaded guilty on February 6, 2019.

According to court documents, from 2014 through at least 2016, Patel conspired with U.S.-based coconspirators and India-based call centers to extort money from U.S. residents by impersonating IRS officers and misleading victims to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not pay their alleged back taxes immediately. The conspirators collected the fraud proceeds by (1) withdrawing cash from prepaid cards purchased and funded by victims; (2) hiring other conspirators (runners) to retrieve money wired by the victims to those runners; and/or (3) hiring runners to open bank accounts into which victims deposited fraud proceeds. The defendants collected the proceeds by providing the runners with the victims’ names, locations, and amounts paid. The runners were directed to retrieve the fraud proceeds in cash and turn the funds over to the defendants, often less a payment to the runner for opening the account or conducting the transaction.

Four others previously pleaded guilty for their roles in the scheme. In March 2019, Alejandro Juarez was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison and  Nishitkumar Patel was sentenced to 8 years and 9 months in federal prison. In April 2019, Hemalkumar Shah was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months in federal prison and Brenda Dozier was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison.

“As a proud IRS Special Agent of 20 years, this fraud infuriates me,” stated Special Agent in Charge Mary Hammond of IRS Criminal Investigations Tampa Field Office. “We here at IRS CI recognize the heartache and concern these crooks cause innocent people. This is why we are eager to team up with our law enforcement partners to track down these impersonators in whatever corner of the globe they may be hiding.”

“This terrible scam took advantage of people who wanted to comply with what they thought were proper authorities,” said FDLE’s Tampa Special Agent in Charge Mark Brutnell. “Thank goodness, investigators from several agencies were able to put an end to it and those responsible will no longer be able to mislead innocent people.”

“Over the last several years, American taxpayers have been subjected to unprecedented attempts to fraudulently obtain money by individuals impersonating Internal Revenue Service employees,” said J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. “Victimizing taxpayers by impersonating IRS employees is a serious crime,” George continued. “TIGTA and our law enforcement partners will continue working to ensure that those involved in the impersonation of IRS employees are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This significant sentencing should serve notice to those who engage in this type of criminal activity that they will be held accountable.”

This case was investigated by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations, the Tampa Police Department, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Rachel K. Jones.

Tampa, FL – U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington has sentenced Hemalkumar Shah (27, citizen of India, residing in Tampa) to eight years and six months in federal prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft related to his participation in an Indian call center scam. As part of Shah’s sentence, the court also entered a money judgment of $80,000.

Shah had pleaded guilty on January 28, 2019.

According to court documents, from 2014 through at least 2016, Shah conspired with U.S.-based co-conspirators and India-based call centers to extort money from U.S. residents by impersonating IRS officers and misleading victims to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not pay their alleged back taxes immediately. The conspirators collected the fraud proceeds by (1) withdrawing cash from prepaid cards purchased and funded by victims; (2) hiring other conspirators (runners) to retrieve money wired by the victims to those runners; and/or (3) hiring runners to open bank accounts into which victims deposited fraud proceeds. The defendants collected the proceeds by providing the runners with the victims’ names, locations, and amounts paid. The runners were directed to retrieve the fraud proceeds in cash and turn the funds over to the defendants, often less a payment to the runner for opening the account or conducting the transaction.

Four others previously pleaded guilty for their roles in the scheme. On March 25, 2019, Alejandro Juarez was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison, and on March 29, 2019, Nishitkumar Patel was sentenced to 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. Sharvil Patel and Brenda Dozier are currently awaiting sentencing.

This case was investigated by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, the Tampa Police Department, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Rachel K. Jones.

Tampa, FL – U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington has sentenced Nishitkumar Patel (31, Tampa) to eight years and nine months in federal prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, relating to his participation in an India-based call center scam. As part of his sentence, the court also entered a money judgment of $200,000, and ordered Patel to forfeit cash and a 2015 Land Rover that was seized in October 2018.

Patel pleaded guilty on January 9, 2019.

According to court documents, from 2014 through at least 2016, Patel conspired with U.S.-based coconspirators and India-based call centers to extort money from U.S. residents by impersonating IRS officers and misleading victims to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not pay their alleged back taxes immediately. The conspirators collected the fraud proceeds by (1) withdrawing cash from prepaid cards purchased and funded by victims; (2) hiring other conspirators (runners) to retrieve money wired by the victims to those runners; and/or (3) hiring runners to open bank accounts into which victims deposited fraud proceeds. The defendants collected the proceeds by providing the runners with the victims’ names, locations, and amounts paid. The runners were directed to retrieve the fraud proceeds in cash and turn the funds over to the defendants, often less a payment to the runner for opening the account or conducting the transaction.

Four others previously pleaded guilty for their roles in the scheme. On March 25, 2019, Alejandro Juarez was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison. Hemalkumar Shah, Sharvil Patel, and Brenda Dozier are currently awaiting sentencing.

“As a proud IRS Special Agent of 20 years, this fraud infuriates me,” stated Special Agent in Charge Mary Hammond of IRS Criminal Investigations Tampa Field Office. “We here at IRS CI recognize the heartache and concern these crooks cause innocent people. This is why we are eager to team up with our law enforcement partners to track down these impersonators in whatever corner of the globe they may be hiding in.”

“This terrible scam took advantage of people who wanted to comply with what they thought were proper authorities,” said FDLE’s Tampa Special Agent in Charge Mark Brutnell. “Thank goodness, investigators from several agencies were able to put an end to it and those responsible will no longer be able to mislead innocent people.”

“Over the last several years, American taxpayers have been subjected to unprecedented attempts to fraudulently obtain money by individuals impersonating Internal Revenue Service employees,” said J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. “Victimizing taxpayers by impersonating IRS employees is a serious crime,” George continued. “TIGTA and our law enforcement partners will continue working to ensure that those involved in the impersonation of IRS employees are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This significant sentencing should serve notice to those who engage in this type of criminal activity that they will be held accountable.”

This case was investigated by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Tampa Police Department, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Rachel K. Jones.

Tampa, FL – Attorney General William P. Barr and U.S. Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez today announced the largest coordinated sweep of elder fraud cases in history, surpassing last year’s nationwide sweep. The cases during this sweep involved more than 260 defendants from around the globe who victimized more than two million Americans, most of them elderly. Twenty individuals have been charged in the Middle District of Florida (see below for case summaries).

“Crimes against the elderly target some of the most vulnerable people in our society,” Attorney General William P. Barr said. “But thanks to the hard work of our agents and prosecutors, as well as our state and local partners, the Department of Justice is protecting our seniors from fraud. The Trump administration has placed a renewed focus on prosecuting those who prey on the elderly, and the results of today’s sweep make that clear. Today we are announcing the largest single law enforcement action against elder fraud in American history. This year’s sweep involves 13 percent more criminal defendants, 28 percent more in losses, and twice the number of fraud victims as last year’s sweep. I want to thank the Department’s Consumer Protection Branch, which led this effort, together with the Department’s Criminal Division, the more than 50 U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and the state and local partners who helped to make these results possible. Together, we are bringing justice and peace of mind to America's seniors.”

“Elder fraud and exploitation can have an especially severe effect on victims,” stated U.S. Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to work together with our law enforcement partners to pursue financial fraudsters who exploit our seniors for personal and financial gain and, we’ll continue our outreach efforts to educate our seniors on ways to avoid and report fraud scams.”

The Department took action in every federal district across the country, through the filing of criminal or civil cases or through consumer education efforts. In each case, offenders allegedly engaged in financial schemes that targeted or largely affected seniors. In total, the charged elder fraud schemes caused alleged losses of millions of more dollars than last year, putting the total alleged losses at this year’s sweep at over three fourths of one billion dollars.

The charges are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The cases in the Middle District of Florida are being handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Rachel Jones, Jennifer Peresie, Nathan Hill, and Karen Gable.

Since President Trump signed the bipartisan Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (EAPPA) into law, the Department of Justice has participated in hundreds of enforcement actions in criminal and civil cases that targeted or disproportionately affected seniors. The Justice Department has likewise conducted hundreds of trainings and outreach sessions across the country since the passage of the Act. 

Middle District of Florida Case Summaries

Tampa

Brenda Dozier has pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging her with money laundering conspiracy relating to her participation in an IRS impersonation scam. From July 2015 through at least November 2015, Dozier laundered money that had been extorted from U.S. residents by conspirators residing in the United States and overseas. India-based conspirators impersonated IRS officers and misled multiple victims to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not immediately pay their alleged back taxes. Dozier received the fraud proceeds, typically via interstate wire transfers, and, once she received the funds, she provided them, less a fee, to other conspirators based in the United States. Dozier’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2019. She faces a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment.

 

As alleged in the eleven-count indictment, from at least 2016 through January 2019, Glenn Francis conspired with India-based call centers to extract money from U.S. residents through a variety of confidence scams, including 1) impersonating IRS officers and misleading U.S. residents to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not pay their alleged back taxes immediately; 2) impersonating loan officers and misleading U.S. residents to believe they would receive loan proceeds upon paying an advance fee to the defendant or others he hired; or 3) impersonating computer technicians and misleading U.S. residents to believe that their computers had been hacked, their identities had been stolen, and/or their computers were infected with viruses and in need of repair, and that the callers would resolve the purported computer problems if paid to do so. Francis collected the Fraud proceeds in the United States and transferred them back to his India-based conspirators. Francis is set for trial in September 2019. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each count of wire and mail fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, and mail fraud. He faces up to 10 years in federal prison for each of the three money laundering charges.

 

Anthony Trujillo has pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with receipt of stolen property relating to his participation in an IRS impersonation scam. In February 2016, Trujillo received approximately $8,200 in his bank account that had been defrauded from two California residents as a result of a confidence scam. Trujillo knew the money had been stolen but instead of reporting it, Trujillo withdrew the fraud proceeds and spent them of over the course of a month. Trujillo’s sentencing hearing is set for March 22, 2019. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

 

Alejandro Juarez has pleaded guilty to a one-count information charging him with money laundering conspiracy for his participation in an IRS impersonation scam. From July 2015 through at least September 2015, Juarez laundered money that had been extorted from U.S. residents by conspirators residing in the United States and overseas. India-based conspirators impersonated IRS officers and misled multiple victims to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not immediately pay their alleged back taxes. Juarez received the fraud proceeds, typically via interstate wire transfers, and, once he received the funds, he provided them, less a fee, to other conspirators based in the United States. Juarez is scheduled to be sentenced on March 15, 2019. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment.

 

Nishitkumar Patel, Hemalkumar Shah, and Sharvil Patel have each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud relating to their participation in an IRS impersonation fraud scam. N. Patel and Shah have each also pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated identity theft. From 2014 through at least 2016, the defendants conspired with India-based call centers to extort money from U.S. residents by impersonating IRS officers and misleading U.S. residents to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not pay their alleged back taxes immediately. They collected the fraud proceeds by (1) withdrawing cash from prepaid cards purchased and funded by victims; (2) hiring other conspirators (runners) to retrieve money wired by the victims to those runners; and/or (3) hiring runners to open bank accounts into which victims deposited fraud proceeds. On October 23, 2018, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the home of Nishitkumar Patel and Hemalkumar Patel. Among other items, they seized approximately $50,000 in cash, hundreds of bank and wire receipts, and 20 electronic devices. Nishitkumar Patel is scheduled to be sentenced on March 28, 2019, the sentencing hearing for Hemalkumar Shah is set for April 18, 2019, and Sharvil Patel’s sentencing hearing is set for May 9, 2019. The defendants each face a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment for the wire fraud conspiracy. N. Patel and Shah also face a minimum mandatory penalty of two years' imprisonment for aggravated identity theft to run consecutive to the term imposed for the fraud count.

 

Gary Kinard, Martin Steele, Mark Boring, Troy Cater and David Bell have each pleaded guilty for their roles in a timeshare fraud scam. The defendants conspired to take money from victims throughout the United States who wanted to sell their timeshare properties. They placed telephone calls to these victims, impersonated real estate professionals and attorneys, and misled the timeshare owners to believe the conspirators had identified buyers for the victims’ timeshares. They told the victims that the sales could be consummated if the victims made one or more advanced payments to the conspirators for various fees purportedly associated with the sales, such as closing costs, courier services, title searches, transfer fees, and legal fees. The conspirators often repeatedly re-contacted the victims and fraudulently advised them that additional fees were needed in order to complete the sales, and they continued to dupe the victims into sending bogus advance fees until the victims either ran out of money or became aware of the scam.  

After the victims had depleted their assets or recognized that they had been defrauded, the conspirators evolved the scheme by re-contacting their victims via email or phone and, now posing as helpful attorneys, told the victims that they had been defrauded in a timeshare scam. They then offered to “represent” the victims against the “first attorneys,” and to obtain settlements on their behalves. Once they had regained the trust of the timeshare victims, they directed the victims to forward additional bogus fees purportedly associated with the cost of litigation, settlement expenses, and other related expenses. Some victims paid the conspirators hundreds of thousands of dollars for the purported “litigation.” Over the course of the conspiracy, many victims lost their retirement savings and their homes.

Gary Kinard, Martin Steele, and Mark Boring have each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft relating to their participation in a timeshare fraud scam. On February 27, 2019, Kinard was sentenced to 7 years and 11 months in federal prison. Steele and Boring have not yet been sentenced. Each faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison for the wire fraud conspiracy and a minimum mandatory consecutive term of 2 years’ imprisonment for the aggravated identity theft count. Troy Cater and David Bell each pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering conspiracy. They each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison. A sentencing date has not yet been scheduled.

 

Orlando

Between February 2012 and October 2014, six individuals defrauded mostly elderly victims out of more than $3.6 million based on false promises that they had won a multi-million dollar sweepstakes prize. These individuals then used stolen identity information to transfer the fraud proceeds to prepaid debit cards and ultimately transmitted the proceeds to their co-conspirators in Jamaica. In November 2018, a federal jury convicted two of the defendants, Nadine Alexander and Shameer Hassan, of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and three counts of aggravated identity theft. The jury also found Hassan guilty of eight counts of money laundering. Alexander and Hassan each face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison on each of the conspiracy charges, and a mandatory minimum of two years’ imprisonment for the aggravated identity theft charges. Hassan also faces up to 20 years’ imprisonment on each of the money laundering charges. Their sentencing hearings are scheduled for March 25, 2019.

Four of the defendants pleaded guilty and have been sentenced. Robert Madurie was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, Danny Lopez was sentenced to seven years and eight months in federal prison, Treysier Mikael LaPalme was sentenced to 7 years and 3 months' imprisonment, and Oral Stewart was sentenced to prison term of five years. In a related case, Charlton Morris, a money launderer for the Jamaican lottery scheme, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. He was sentenced to 10 years and 1 month of imprisonment.

 

Rohan Brown has pleaded guilty to one count wire fraud, one count mail fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft for his participation in two conspiracies targeting elderly victims. In one conspiracy, victims in the United States received a phone call from a conspirator in Jamaica who told them they had won a sweepstakes. The victims were told that before they could receive their winnings, they had to send money for “taxes” to Brown in Orlando. The second scheme involved using the stolen personal identification information of Social Security beneficiaries to redirect Social Security benefits into a bank account controlled by Brown. Between both schemes, Brown and his conspirators stole more than $170,000 from more than two dozen elderly victims across the United States.  Brown faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison for each fraud count and a mandatory consecutive of penalty 2 years’ imprisonment for the aggravated identity theft count.

Tampa, FL – United States Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez announces the unsealing of an indictment charging Nishitkumar Patel (31, Tampa), Hemalkumar Shah (27, Tampa), and Sharvil Patel (22, Tampa) with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and extortion, and substantive counts of wire fraud and extortion. The indictment also charges Nishitkumar Patel and Hemalkumar Patel with money laundering and aggravated identity theft. Each of the three defendants faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison on each count of wire fraud conspiracy, extortion conspiracy, wire fraud, and extortion. Nishitkumar Patel and Hemalkumar Patel face an additional penalty of up to 10 years in federal prison for money laundering, and a minimum mandatory consecutive two years in prison for aggravated identity theft. The indictment also notifies the defendants that the United States is seeking a money judgment in the amount of at least $2.27 million, the proceeds of the wire fraud and extortion conspiracies.

According to the indictment, from 2014 through at least 2016, the defendants conspired with India-based call centers to extort money from U.S. residents by impersonating IRS officers. The defendants misled their victims to believe that they owed money to the IRS and would be arrested and fined if they did not pay their alleged back taxes immediately, so the victims would pay the defendants. The defendants collected the fraud proceeds by (1) withdrawing cash from prepaid cards purchased and funded by victims; (2) hiring other conspirators (runners) to retrieve money wired by the victims to those runners; and/or (3) hiring runners to open bank accounts into which victims deposited fraud proceeds.

In order to collect the fraud proceeds, the defendants provided the runners with the victims’ names, locations, and amount paid. The defendants directed the runners to retrieve the fraud proceeds in cash, and remit it to the defendants, often less a payment to the runner for opening the account or conducting the transaction.

On October 23, 2018, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at the home of Nishitkumar Patel and Hemalkumar Patel. Among other items, they seized approximately $50,000 in cash, hundreds of bank and wire transfer receipts, and 20 electronic devices.

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 the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, the Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Rachel K. Jones.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cxMwS3bx5uTxNpKpUmmzhb0Tol1iuqKBdwtEbhMNXys
  Last Updated: 2024-04-08 18:20:39 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The 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 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: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 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 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 title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
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 fourth most severe disposition and Penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
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 fifth most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE5
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE5
Format: N4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE5
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE5
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE5
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
Format: YYYY

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