Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-CA  3:18-cr-05260
Case Name:   USA v. Razuki et al
  Press Releases:
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – September 23, 2019

SAN DIEGO – Martin Gomez of California was sentenced in federal court today to 240 months in prison for leading a conspiracy to smuggle methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana, and cell phones through a Corrections Officer into a state prison.

Gomez had previously pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement, after being indicted with 10 other co-conspirators.

One co-defendant, Juan Gutierrez, charged in the conspiracy remains awaiting trial, which is scheduled for January 21, 2020.  The trial was continued from May 2019 after Gutierrez struck his own attorney in open court during a status hearing just prior to his trial.

From his cell in a California state prison in Los Angeles, Gomez organized and directed a group of at least 11 other participants to smuggle contraband into a different state prison, Richard J. Donovan (“RJD”), in San Diego.  Gomez arranged for individuals outside of prison to deliver the drugs and cell phones to a Corrections Officer, Anibal Navarro.  He then instructed Navarro to collect the contraband and money, and deliver the contraband to certain inmates inside the prison.  Gomez directed those inmates to retrieve the contraband and deliver it to other inmates within RJD.

Gomez approached Navarro while an inmate at RJD, offering him an avenue to make extra money Gomez knew Navarro needed.  Navarro was paid between $1,000 and $2,000 each time he smuggled the contraband into the prison.  Even after Gomez was transferred out of RJD to another prison, Gomez led the conspiracy for over two years.  Over 500 grams of methamphetamine, heroin, cell phones, and other contraband were smuggled into RJD at Gomez’s direction while he was incarcerated elsewhere.

Gomez was able to continue coordinating and supervising the operation by conducting conference calls with Sylvia Gonzales, Gomez’s associate outside the prison, Navarro, and others.  During these calls, the conspirators arranged for narcotics, cellular telephones and cash to be delivered to Navarro at various locations in Southern California.

In addition to Gonzales, the smuggling operation was also aided by others outside the prison, including Everaldo Santana, Norma Alvarado-Medina and Vanessa Jackson.  These individuals provided Navarro with the narcotics and cellular telephones to smuggle into the prison.

After the contraband was smuggled into the prison, RJD inmates Agustin Aceves, Juan Gutierrez, John Price, Jeremy Gaither and Hugo Alvarado received and distributed the narcotics and cellular telephones to other inmates.  The phones were used to coordinate criminal activity both inside and outside the facility.

“This defendant personally profited from a corrupt drug smuggling scheme that significantly interfered with the rehabilitation of his fellow inmates,” said U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer, Jr.  “He also created a dangerous prison environment by providing cell phones, which can result in drug trafficking, fraud, and even violence.  This sentence signals that justice does not stop at the prison gate; those who engage in prison corruption will face significant consequences.”

With the exception of Gutierrez, Gomez’s codefendants have all pleaded guilty.  They have been sentenced as follows.

Sylvia Gonzales was convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire fraud, and sentenced to five years’ probation.

Everaldo Santana was convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud, and sentenced to time-served, with three years’ supervised release.

Agustin Aceves was convicted of Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine, and sentenced to 151 months incarceration, to run 50% concurrent and 50% consecutive to his state case, followed by five years’ supervised release.

Norma Alvarado-Medina was convicted of Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine, and sentenced to 41 months, with three years’ supervised release to follow.

John Price was convicted of Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine and Heroin, and was sentenced to 51 months incarceration, to run 50% concurrent and 50% consecutive with his state case, followed by four years’ supervised release.

Vanessa Jackson was convicted of Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine, and sentenced to 30 months, to be followed by four years of supervised release.

Hugo Alvarado was convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud, and sentenced to 18 months to run concurrent with his state sentence, with three years of supervised release to follow.

Edgar Arreguin was convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Wire Fraud, and sentenced to time served with three years’ supervised release.

The FBI encourages the public to report allegations of public corruption to our hotline at (877) NO-BRIBE (662-7423).

 

DEFENDANTS                                                     Case No. 17cr0446-AJB                                                  

MARTIN GOMEZ                                         Age 58            Lancaster Prison

SYLVIA GONZALES                                     Age 59            Sylmar, California

EVERALDO SANTANA                                Age 27            Los Angeles, California

AGUSTIN ACEVES                                      Age 45            Lancaster Prison

NORMA ALVARADO-MEDINA                    Age 36            Al Monte, California

JUAN GUTIERREZ                                      Age 44            Vacaville, California

JOHN PRICE                                              Age 23            Salinas Valley Prison

VANESSA JACKSON                                   Age 42            Pasadena, California

JEREMY GAITHER                                      Age 35            Valley State Prison

HUGO ALVARADO                                     Age 27            High Desert Prison

EDGAR ARREGUIN                                     Age 44            Lemon Grove, California

DEFENDANTS                                                     Case No. 16cr1664-AJB                                                  

ANIBAL NAVARRO                                    Age 40             Chula Vista, California

SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Conspiracy to Distribute Illegal Narcotics – Title 21, U.S.C., Sections 841(a) and 846

10-year mandatory minimum

Maximum penalty: Life in prison and $20,000,000 fine

AGENCY

Federal Bureau of Investigation – San Diego Field Office

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Internal Affairs

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Investigative Service Unit

United States Postal Service – Inspector Service

*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 

NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – November 20, 2018

SAN DIEGO – Yesterday, federal authorities charged Salam Razuki, Sylvia Gonzales and Elizabeth Juarez with offenses related to a conspiracy to kidnap and kill a business associate over a dispute involving real estate investment properties, most of which were leased to marijuana dispensaries.  All three defendants were arrested last week.

According to the complaint, in October 2018, Salam Razuki and Sylvia Gonzales met with a Confidential Human Source and asked the source to arrange to kill one of their business associates, N.M. (name redacted for privacy reasons).  Razuki and Gonzales stated that they had invested in multiple properties and business ventures with N.M. and were now involved in a civil dispute over their assets. They wanted the source to “shoot him in the face,” “to take him to Mexico and have him whacked,” or kill him in some other way.  Razuki and Gonzales provided the source with a picture of N.M.

In subsequent conversations earlier this month, defendants Razuki and Gonzales, eventually joined by Elizabeth Juarez, reiterated their desire to have N.M., who they nicknamed “the midget,” taken to Mexico and killed, with Gonzales and Juarez stating they wanted to “put the turkey up to roast before Thanksgiving.”  Defendants offered to pay the source $2,000, with $1,000 to be paid immediately. Defendant Gonzales went to the Goldn Bloom Dispensary and returned with $1,000 cash, which defendants provided to the source along with two addresses for N.M.

The complaint further states that on or about November 13, 2018, Gonzales called the source and indicated that she and Razuki would be with N.M. in court at the Hall of Justice at 330 West Broadway in San Diego.  Gonzales asked the source to join them in order to see N.M. in person. The source declined going into the courtroom, but agreed to stand outside the building and wait for N.M. to exit. While inside the Hall of Justice, Gonzales took a picture of N.M. with her phone, sent it to the source and then called the source to describe what N.M. was wearing. Gonzales left the Hall of Justice and met with the source to further describe N.M. During this meeting, Gonzales identified the locations of two businesses N.M. manages and stated “if they take him now, it’s gunna be good.” Gonzales went back into the courthouse and provided updates as N.M. was departing the Hall of Justice, to ensure the source observed N.M. as he left.

According to the complaint, on November 15, 2018, the source met with Razuki and stated, “I took care of it.” Razuki replied, “So he will take care of it, or it’s done?” The source replied, “Done.” Razuki quickly changed the subject to discuss other business investments and pending loans. Later in the conversation, the source asked whether Razuki wanted to see proof. Razuki replied, “No, I'm ok with it. I don't want to see it.” The source then requested the remainder of the agreed-upon payment and Razuki indicated Gonzales would handle this.

The complaint reflects that defendants’ business dispute with N.M. involved approximately $40 million.  In an interview with FBI, N.M. advised that he had invested in real estate with Razuki in order to lease buildings to various entities, which were primarily marijuana dispensaries.

Detention hearings for defendants Salam Razuki and Elizabeth Juarez are scheduled to occur on Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Fred Sheppard.

*The charges and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

DEFENDANT                                                Case Number 18MJ5915                                         

Salam Razuki

Sylvia Gonzales

Elizabeth Juarez        

SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Title 18, United States Code, Section 956 - Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim an individual

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c) - Conspiracy to kidnap

INVESTIGATING AGENCIES

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Assistant U. S. Attorney Andrew Young (619) 546-7981

Assistant U.S. Attorney Todd Robinson (619)-546-7994

 

NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – February 28, 2017

 

SAN DIEGO – Eleven people, including a former Corrections Officer at Richard J. Donovan (“RJD”) Correctional Facility, are charged in federal court as members of a network that smuggled methamphetamine, heroin, marijuana and cellular telephones into the prison.

 

The key defendant, Anibal Navarro, the former Corrections Officer at RJD, was arrested by FBI Agents and officials from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations-Office of Internal Affairs on June 26, 2016 as he attempted to smuggle heroin, methamphetamine and cellular telephones into the prison.

 

Ten additional individuals, including inmates and their associates on the outside, were indicted by a federal grand jury on charges that they conspired with Navarro to smuggle drugs and cellular telephones into the prison. Navarro was released on bond.

 

Four defendants were arrested today in Los Angeles; six are already in custody in California state prisons.

 

According to the indictment, Martin Gomez, while an inmate at RJD in 2014, recruited Navarro to smuggle contraband into the prison. After Gomez was moved to another California state prison, he continued to coordinate and supervise the operation by conducting conference calls with Sylvia Gonzales, Gomez’s associate outside the prison, Navarro and others. During these calls, the conspirators arranged for narcotics, cellular telephones and cash to be delivered to Navarro at various locations in Southern California.

 

In addition to Gonzales, the smuggling operation was also aided by others outside the prison, including Everaldo Santana, Norma Alvardo-Medina and Vanessa Jackson, according to allegations in the indictment. These individuals provided Navarro with the narcotics and cellular telephones to smuggle into the prison. return, Navarro was paid between $1,000 and $2,000 each time he smuggled contraband into the prison. According to the dictment, this smuggling operation began in April 2014 and lasted nearly two years until it was dismantled in June 2016 with Navarro’s arrest.

 

The indictment alleges that after the contraband was smuggled into the prison, RJD inmates Agustin Aceves, Juan Gutierrez, John Price, Jeremy Gaither and Hugo Alvarado received and distributed the narcotics and cellular telephones to other inmates. The phones were used to coordinate criminal activity both inside and outside the facility.

 

Deputy United States Attorney Mark Conover said, “Corrections officers play a critical role in protecting the public from some of the most dangerous criminals. By placing greed above his duty, former Officer Navarro compromised the security of the public and enabled violent felons to continue committing crimes within the prison walls. We will continue to aggressively investigate and prosecute every individual involved in these criminal activities.”

 

FBI Special Agent Eric S. Birnbaum said, “The FBI is responsible for investigating corruption involving government officials and their entire criminal networks. Today’s arrests are an example of how our investigators work with our law enforcement and corrections partners to reveal the individuals fulfilling each role of the criminal network that affect the safety and security of our correctional facilities.”

 

The FBI encourages the public to report allegations of public corruption to our hotline at (877) NO-BRIBE (662-7423).

 

DEFENDANTS Case No. 17cr0446-AJB

 

MARTIN GOMEZ Age 56 Lancaster Prison

 

SYLVIA GONZALES Age 57 Sylmar, California

 

EVERALDO SANTANA Age 25 Los Angeles, California

 

AGUSTIN ACEVES Age 42 Lancaster Prison

 

NORMA ALVARADO-MEDINA Age 33 El Monte, California

 

JUAN GUTIERREZ Age 42 Vacaville, California

 

JOHN PRICE Age 20 Salinas Valley Prison

 

VANESSA JACKSON Age 39 Pasadena, California

 

JEREMY GAITHER Age 33 Valley State Prison

 

HUGO ALVARADO Age 24 High Desert Prison

 

DEFENDANTS Case No. 16cr1664-AJB

 

ANIBAL NAVARRO Age 38 Chula Vista, California

 

SUMMARY OF CHARGES

 

Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances – Title 21, U.S.C., Sections 841(a) (1) and 846

Maximum Penalty: Life in Prison

 

Conspiracy to Commit Honest Services Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 1349

Maximum Penalty: 20 years in prison

 

AGENCY

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation – San Diego Field Office

 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Internal Affairs

 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Investigative Service Unit

 

United States Postal Service – Inspection Service

 

San Diego Police Department

 

*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aFGio-ggXk5rWU9m70xhC4CxFasZoFeEIdqSosPjzLE
  Last Updated: 2024-03-07 23:35:02 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-CA  3:18-mj-05915
Case Name:   USA v. Razuki et al
  Press Releases:
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – November 20, 2018

SAN DIEGO – Yesterday, federal authorities charged Salam Razuki, Sylvia Gonzales and Elizabeth Juarez with offenses related to a conspiracy to kidnap and kill a business associate over a dispute involving real estate investment properties, most of which were leased to marijuana dispensaries.  All three defendants were arrested last week.

According to the complaint, in October 2018, Salam Razuki and Sylvia Gonzales met with a Confidential Human Source and asked the source to arrange to kill one of their business associates, N.M. (name redacted for privacy reasons).  Razuki and Gonzales stated that they had invested in multiple properties and business ventures with N.M. and were now involved in a civil dispute over their assets. They wanted the source to “shoot him in the face,” “to take him to Mexico and have him whacked,” or kill him in some other way.  Razuki and Gonzales provided the source with a picture of N.M.

In subsequent conversations earlier this month, defendants Razuki and Gonzales, eventually joined by Elizabeth Juarez, reiterated their desire to have N.M., who they nicknamed “the midget,” taken to Mexico and killed, with Gonzales and Juarez stating they wanted to “put the turkey up to roast before Thanksgiving.”  Defendants offered to pay the source $2,000, with $1,000 to be paid immediately. Defendant Gonzales went to the Goldn Bloom Dispensary and returned with $1,000 cash, which defendants provided to the source along with two addresses for N.M.

The complaint further states that on or about November 13, 2018, Gonzales called the source and indicated that she and Razuki would be with N.M. in court at the Hall of Justice at 330 West Broadway in San Diego.  Gonzales asked the source to join them in order to see N.M. in person. The source declined going into the courtroom, but agreed to stand outside the building and wait for N.M. to exit. While inside the Hall of Justice, Gonzales took a picture of N.M. with her phone, sent it to the source and then called the source to describe what N.M. was wearing. Gonzales left the Hall of Justice and met with the source to further describe N.M. During this meeting, Gonzales identified the locations of two businesses N.M. manages and stated “if they take him now, it’s gunna be good.” Gonzales went back into the courthouse and provided updates as N.M. was departing the Hall of Justice, to ensure the source observed N.M. as he left.

According to the complaint, on November 15, 2018, the source met with Razuki and stated, “I took care of it.” Razuki replied, “So he will take care of it, or it’s done?” The source replied, “Done.” Razuki quickly changed the subject to discuss other business investments and pending loans. Later in the conversation, the source asked whether Razuki wanted to see proof. Razuki replied, “No, I'm ok with it. I don't want to see it.” The source then requested the remainder of the agreed-upon payment and Razuki indicated Gonzales would handle this.

The complaint reflects that defendants’ business dispute with N.M. involved approximately $40 million.  In an interview with FBI, N.M. advised that he had invested in real estate with Razuki in order to lease buildings to various entities, which were primarily marijuana dispensaries.

Detention hearings for defendants Salam Razuki and Elizabeth Juarez are scheduled to occur on Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Fred Sheppard.

*The charges and allegations contained in the complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.

DEFENDANT                                                Case Number 18MJ5915                                         

Salam Razuki

Sylvia Gonzales

Elizabeth Juarez        

SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Title 18, United States Code, Section 956 - Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim an individual

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1201(c) - Conspiracy to kidnap

INVESTIGATING AGENCIES

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/102po9vEWfp17OQsaTsgfKotEcTxZRpEF-7-A8KyaFUU
  Last Updated: 2023-10-15 19:47:29 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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