Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   ND-IA  3:18-cr-03039
Case Name:   USA v. Weaver
  Press Releases:
An experienced Algona contractor who purchased and renovated the former Kossuth County Home without thoroughly inspecting for asbestos was sentenced February 13, 2019, to two years of probation. 

Steven A. Weaver, age 61, from Algona, Iowa, received sentence after an October 11, 2018 guilty plea to one count of violating clean air work practice standards.

In a plea agreement, Weaver admitted he was an experienced contractor and building inspector who had worked for various Iowa municipalities since the early 2000s.  During this time, Weaver performed work for the municipalities that was financed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Iowa Finance Authority.  Weaver was responsible for conducting initial inspections of residential properties to determine whether it was cost-effective to rehabilitate each home.  In conjunction with this work, Weaver gained experience working with lead and asbestos. 

In November 2013, Weaver purchased the former Kossuth County Home in the Algona area.  Weaver intended to convert the building into apartments to be known as “The Oasis.”  Weaver hired workers to renovate the building.  None of these workers were licensed to remove asbestos.  Prior to beginning the renovation, Weaver failed to thoroughly inspect the building for asbestos to determine whether it was subject to regulation.

In November 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) searched Weaver’s property and determined piping in the basement contained regulated asbestos.  Weaver’s workers had already removed the piping.  An EPA agent asked Weaver whether he had notified the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”) before the renovation and, when Weaver indicated he had not, the EPA agent instructed Weaver to report to IDNR.  However, Weaver did not notify IDNR.  Instead, Weaver continued the renovation operation in late 2014 without properly notifying IDNR. 

Weaver was sentenced in Sioux City by United States District Court Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand.  Chief Judge Strand indicated the offense was “aggravating” because Weaver had cut corners on his own renovation project and potentially put his workers at risk of asbestos exposure.  Weaver was sentenced to two years of probation, fined $10,000, and ordered to pay costs of prosecution in the amount of $1,573.35. 

The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Tim Vavricek and Matt Cole and investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl. 

The case file number is 18-CR-3039-LTS.

Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EHDISXyIWoeWKec01ZSPl8Z2Fu6iHN_ey_QQcdQpn28/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-15 20:06:00 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 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
A Jamaican man was sentenced yesterday, in federal court in Cedar Rapids, to 41 months’ imprisonment for participating in a mail fraud scheme that defrauded an elderly and sick Illinois couple. Ricardo Fredrick Smith a/k/a “Rickey Ricardo Smith” a/k/a “Ricky” a/k/a “Stinger”, 39, from St. James Parish, Jamaica, received the prison term after his guilty plea in October 2016 to one count of Mail Fraud. Smith admitted he participated in the scheme beginning no later than September 2015, and continuing through at least December 2015. As a part of the scheme, an elderly Illinois woman was falsely told she had won a lottery and was entitled to large sums of money. She was also told the winnings or funds could be claimed only if she first mailed money for purported taxes or fees. In truth, no such winnings existed and the calls were designed only to steal from the victim and her husband, a U.S. Navy veteran who was the resident of a long-term care facility and suffering from dementia. Like many senior citizens in the United States, the couple received unsolicited telephone calls; they even changed their telephone number to avoid unsolicited calls, but such calls nonetheless resumed after they changed their phone number.

 

Smith lived in the United States during the growing seasons of 2015 and 2016 under an H2B visa, which allowed him to work at two Cedar Rapids area lawn-care companies. At his plea hearing and the sentencing hearing, Smith admitted that he recruited his girlfriend, Tea Ware, into the scheme in 2015 and instructed Ware to communicate with him by means of a popular encrypted instant messaging application to evade detection by law enforcement. Before leaving the United States in 2015, Smith opened a second, “shadow” banking account at a local financial institution at which he was a patron and added Ware as a joint account owner to the “shadow” account to facilitate the fraud. Then, while in Jamaica in December 2015, defendant used the encrypted messaging system to instruct Ware how to structure withdrawals of the victims’ funds from the “shadow” account in a way that would evade law enforcement scrutiny. Smith was arrested in 2016 just before leaving the United States for a second time.

 

The prosecution is part of the Elder Justice Initiative of the Department of Justice. In June 2016, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa was selected as one of 10 districts in the nation to form an Elder Justice Task Force (http://go.usa.gov/cSngj). The task force was assembled to foster a collaborative working relationship among all levels of government officials, advocacy groups for the elderly and the disabled, and others charged with the care and protection for these vulnerable groups. The goals include ensuring the integrity of all government expenditures by eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse in health programs, and protecting some of the state’s most vulnerable citizens from harm, whether it occurs in nursing homes or other institutions or involves financial fraud schemes. To learn more about the Department of Justice’s Elder Justice Initiative, visit: https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/

 

Smith was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Judge Linda R. Reade. Judge Reade found Smith crime an “outrageous victimization of elderly and sick people”, noting that the elderly Illinois couple consisted of a woman with memory problems and a U.S. Navy veteran suffering from dementia who lives in a long-term care facility. When Smith asked for leniency because he was likely to be deported to Jamaica following his prison term and would live a life of poverty there, Judge Reade responded, “so be it.” Judge Reade sentenced Smith to 41 months’ imprisonment. A special assessment of $100 was imposed, and he was ordered to make $108,100 in restitution his elderly victims. Smith must also serve a three-year term of supervised release after the prison term. There is no parole in the federal system. Smith is being held in the United States Marshal’s custody until he can be transported to a federal prison.

 

Acting United States Attorney Sean R. Berry stated, “Protecting the elderly and sick from financial abuse is a priority of this Office. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold these predators accountable. I thank the diligent agents of the FBI and USPIS for their hard work on this case.” FBI SAC Randall Thysse praised the cooperative efforts of the FBI, the US Postal Inspection Service and the United States Attorney’s Office to bring the perpetrator of this crime against a vulnerable victim to justice. “The US Postal Inspection Service is committed to ensuring that these types of predatory schemes are investigated aggressively,” said U.S. Postal Inspector in Charge Craig Goldberg of the Denver Division, which covers multiple states including Iowa. “The stiff sentence issued in this case highlights the efforts of Postal Inspectors who ensure those who conduct these schemes are brought to justice, especially when foreign nationals bring their schemes to U.S. soil.”

 

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Tim Vavricek and was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.

The case file number is 16-CR-92-LRR.

 

Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
On November 30, 2017, five members of the team that investigated the May, 2011 killing of Tony Canfield were recognized for their efforts with the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) national group achievement award. The award ceremony took place at the Sioux City Police Department.

 

The FLEOA was founded in 1977, and is a non-profit organization that represents federal law enforcement agents across the nation, and currently represents more than 25,000 federal law enforcement agents from over 65 different agencies.

 

The recipients of the FLEOA award were FBI Special Agent Jonathan Moeller, Northern District of Iowa Assistant United States Attorney Forde Fairchild, Sioux City Police Department Detectives Heather Albrecht and Mike Simons and Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Office Captain Mike Walsh.

 

The national award stems from the recipients’ group efforts in the investigation of Sioux City resident Tony Canfield’s murder. The case began on May 1, 2011, when Mr. Canfield and his wife were robbed at gunpoint by three men. One of the robbers held and brutalized the wife, while the other two physically robbed Mr. Canfield of marijuana and cash. Mr. Canfield resisted his attackers and attempted to escape the robbery by fleeing his home. While fleeing, Mr. Canfield was shot and killed on his front porch. The crime went unsolved for five years, owing to the fact there was no forensic evidence identifying the perpetrators, and neither the murder weapon, nor any shell casings were recovered at the scene. In addition, the wife could not identify the robbers as they were wearing masks. Nonetheless, through dogged investigative work, which included numerous interviews conducted in a number of different states, the perpetrators were arrested and prosecuted. In 2016, all three defendants were convicted, and sentenced. The sentences ranged from 20 to 35 years’ imprisonment.

 

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa Peter Deegan stated: “Our office is proud to count Assistant United States Attorney Forde Fairchild among those who helped bring Canfield’s ruthless killers to justice.  The investigative team represents the very best in cooperative law enforcement and is most deserving of this prestigious award.”

 

Sioux City Police Chief Rex Muller added: “We are extremely proud of the working relationship we have with the local FBI Office and United States Attorney’s Office. This was a particularly challenging case that required the resources of multiple agencies to lead to a successful prosecution. These criminals presented a significant danger to the general public if not identified and arrested. The efforts of the investigators and prosecutors in this case over a five year period are a testament to their dedication to bring justice to this case, as well as bring some closure to the family of Tony Canfield. It is a fine example of the strong cooperation and capability that exists within Northwestern Iowa law enforcement community.”

 

In praising the investigative team, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead said: “I’m proud that Captain Mike Walsh was able to provide valuable assistance to this joint investigation and help bring those responsible to justice. The team’s dedication, thoroughness and persistence paid off in ways far beyond the award they received today.”

 

Finally, FBI Special Agent Jon Moeller, a member of the award winning team, said: “Although this investigation took five years, it never really went ‘cold’.  Diligently and persistently a team of investigators and analysts - spread over five states - and from multiple agencies, never stopped working this case.  Together we brought three killers to justice, brought closure to the friends and family of Mr. Canfield, and a renewed sense of security to the whole community.  It is an honor and privilege to work with these folks on a daily basis.”

 

Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   ND-IA  5:18-cr-04058
Case Name:   USA v. Draper
  Press Releases:
A man who had of multiple felony offenses, including an Iowa State conviction for dominion and control of a firearm as a felon in 1991, was sentenced February 20, 2019, to federal prison for, once again, unlawfully possessing a firearm.

Jon Merrit Draper, age 57, from Cherokee, Iowa, received the prison term after a September 18, 2018, guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a felon.

Evidence at Draper’s sentencing and change of plea hearings revealed on January 14, 2018 he was a marijuana manufacturer, distributor, and user who was also a felon in possession of three guns.  It also revealed Draper’s marijuana operation fed the weekly habit of at least one person for approximately two years, the daily habit of others for an unknown time period. 

Draper kept the guns in a bedroom adjacent to a parlor used for drug-use, and above a basement used to manufacture drugs.  Two of the guns were loaded, none of them were cased.  Ammunition was also found in the basement.  

Draper’s criminal history included a conviction for dominion and control of a firearm as a felon in 1991 (for which he received a 15-year suspended sentence), two minor controlled substance related violations in 2003, and 2015, six OWI convictions, and an assault conviction. 

Draper was sentenced in Sioux City by United States District Court Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand.  Draper was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.  He must also serve a two-year term of supervised release after the prison term and pay a $100 special assessment.  There is no parole in the federal system.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN).  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 PSN, a broad spectrum of 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 for lasting reductions in crime.

Draper was released on the bond previously set and is to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on a date yet to be set.

The case was investigated by Cherokee Police Department, Cherokee Sheriff’s Office and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Forde Fairchild. 

Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl. 

The case file number is 18-CR-4058.

Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FgGLFsjPcPVEJrhu93H7nN1Fru374R6k4Jf7t1_04b8/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-15 19:59:47 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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   ND-IA  6:18-cr-02032
Case Name:   USA v. Isler
  Press Releases:
Josh Harry Isler, age 55, from St. Ansgar, Iowa, was sentenced today in United States District Court in Cedar Rapids to serve 42 months’ imprisonment as a result of his July 11, 2018, pleas of guilty to one count of trade secret theft and one count of making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ­ 

As part of his guilty plea, Isler admitted that, during August 2013, while employed with DuPont, and after having accepted an offer of employment with a smaller competitor, he stole and misappropriated, without authorization, trade secrets of DuPont.  According to admissions contained in a plea agreement and evidence presented at a prior hearing in the case, Isler was recruited by a competitor of DuPont in the ethanol fuel business to take a job with the competitor.  The competitor offered Isler a new car and a significantly higher salary than Isler had been paid during his short tenure at DuPont, despite the fact that Isler had been underperforming and struggling to understand basic concepts while employed by DuPont. 

On the same day Isler accepted a position with the competitor, the competitor’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) informed Isler that Isler would be servicing two particular ethanol plant customers, who had also been customers of DuPont, and asked Isler if he had seen “any baseline data” for those plants.  Isler responded by stating, “let me see what I can before I can’t.”  In a later message that day, the COO told Isler, “I think you made the right choice.” 

Isler submitted his resignation letter to DuPont the following day.  However, Isler did not leave DuPont until two weeks later.  During the intervening two weeks, Isler downloaded and sent to the competitor numerous electronic files that contained proprietary and trade secret information of DuPont.  This included test, yield, and pricing information for products and customers of DuPont.

A few days before leaving DuPont, Isler notified the competitor’s COO that he would be turning in his company phone to DuPont.  The COO instructed Isler to “erase all texts with me before giving the phone back.”

During an exit interview with DuPont, Isler acknowledged that he understood a confidentiality agreement he signed before he started work with DuPont required that Isler keep DuPont’s intellectual property private even after he left the company.

A few months after Isler left DuPont, the FBI executed a federal search warrant at his residence and seized computers and other electronic storage devices that contained proprietary and trade secret information of DuPont.  At that time, Isler falsely denied to the FBI that he had downloaded, to his DuPont or personal electronic storage devices, files containing proprietary information of DuPont.

At the sentencing hearing today, United States District Court Judge Linda R. Reade emphasized that, although Isler had signed a confidentiality agreement and had been trained and counseled by DuPont concerning his obligation to protect trade secrets, he nonetheless committed several criminal violations of these obligations within about six months of being hired by DuPont.  The court also expressed concern about the ethics of the competitor in receiving the stolen information.

Isler was sentenced to serve 42 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a $200 special assessment and a $5000 fine.  The court also ordered Isler to serve a 3-year term of supervised release following completion of the term of imprisonment.

“The theft of intellectual property is not only unfair, it is a serious crime with serious consequences,” said United States Attorney Peter E. Deegan, Jr.  “Those who steal trade secrets seek to gain an unfair advantage over their victims and, in the process, their greedy acts damage our economy and stifle technological development.  My office will continue to prosecute those who steal secrets from companies in the Northern District of Iowa.”

FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Omaha Division Randall Thysse said, "The theft of trade secrets and other intellectual property harms individual companies and our economy, and the FBI will continue to aggressively investigate these activities."

Isler was allowed the privilege of self-surrender to the United States Bureau of Prisons.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Richard L. Murphy and was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl. 

The case file number is 18-CR-2032-LRR.                     

Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

Josh Harry Isler, age 55, from St. Ansgar, Iowa, has been charged with one count of trade secret theft and one count of making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ­ The charges are contained in an Information filed today in the United States District Court in Cedar Rapids. 

The Information alleges that, during at least August 2013, while employed by DuPont and after having accepted an offer of employment with a competitor, Isler stole trade secrets of DuPont.  After Isler accepted employment with a competitor of DuPont in the ethanol fuel enzyme business, he allegedly transferred hundreds of DuPont’s electronic files to an external storage device.  It is also alleged Isler knew the files he downloaded contained proprietary information and trade secrets of DuPont and many related to customers of DuPont who were also customers of the competitor or whose business was being sought by the competitor.  It is alleged Isler retained the files in his new job and transferred some to his new employer.

The Information also alleges that when he was interviewed by the FBI in November 2013, Isler falsely denied he had downloaded the files containing proprietary information of DuPont.

If convicted on both charges, Isler faces a maximum combined sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, a fine of up to $500,000, and eight years of supervised release after any imprisonment.  Isler could also be ordered to pay restitution to DuPont.

Isler’s initial appearance in federal court in Cedar Rapids has been scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on July 5, 2018.

As with any criminal case, a charge is merely an accusation and a defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Richard L. Murphy and was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.  The case file number is 18-CR-2032. 

Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1z-BXxYeoojr7g6DYWq5I8KpzcXFoKD4oRHRx8lQzyuE/edit#gid=0
  Last Updated: 2019-10-15 20:00:31 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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
  Press Releases:
On November 30, 2017, five members of the team that investigated the May, 2011 killing of Tony Canfield will be recognized for their efforts with the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) national group achievement award. The award ceremony will take place at the Sioux City Police Department at 4:30 p.m., and will be followed by a press conference.

 

The FLEOA was founded in 1977, and is a non-profit organization that represents federal law enforcement agents across the nation, and currently represents more than 25,000 federal law enforcement agents from over 65 different agencies.

 

The recipients of the FLEOA award are FBI Special Agent Jonathan Moeller, Northern District of Iowa Assistant United States Attorney Forde Fairchild, Sioux City Police Department Detectives Heather Albrecht and Mike Simons and Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Office Captain Mike Walsh. The national award stems from the recipients’ group efforts in the investigation of Sioux City resident Tony Canfield’s murder. The case began on May 1, 2011, when Mr. Canfield and his wife were robbed at gunpoint by three men. One of the robbers held and brutalized the wife, while the other two physically robbed Mr. Canfield of marijuana and cash. Mr. Canfield resisted his attackers and attempted to escape the robbery by fleeing his home. While fleeing, Mr. Canfield was shot and killed on his front porch. The crime went unsolved for five years, owing to the fact there was no forensic evidence identifying the perpetrators, and neither the murder weapon, nor any shell casings were recovered at the scene. In addition, the wife could not identify the robbers as they were wearing masks. Nonetheless, through dogged investigative work, which included numerous interviews conducted in a number of different states, the perpetrators were arrested and prosecuted. In 2016, all three defendants were convicted, and sentenced. The sentences ranged from 20 to 35 years’ imprisonment. 

 

Press releases and interview opportunities will be available. 

 

Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.

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