Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:18-cr-00179
Case Name:   USA v. Pina et al
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that LOUIS PINA was sentenced to 39 months in prison for participating in a scheme to defraud drivers of two ride-sharing companies (“Company-1” and “Company-2”) by accessing those drivers’ accounts without authorization in order to divert driver funds to bank accounts controlled by PINA and other members of the scheme (the “Scheme”).  PINA previously pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft before U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who imposed today’s sentence.  PINA is the eighth defendant to have pled guilty in this case.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Louis Pina was a leader of a criminal consortium that deceived the drivers of two ride-sharing companies, enabling the criminals to access drivers’ accounts and steal millions of dollars.  Hard-working men and women who worked long hours to make a living had their accounts hacked into and their hard-earned money stolen.  Now Louis Pina is going to prison for his crimes.”

According to the Complaint, the Indictment to which PINA pled guilty, court filings, and statements made in public court proceedings:

PINA and his co-defendants defrauded livery drivers and ride-sharing companies using mobile ride-sharing applications.  The Scheme targeted drivers associated with Company-1 and Company-2.  Scheme members called Company-1 and Company-2 drivers posing as Company-1 and Company-2 representatives, and deceived the drivers into providing unique personal identifiers and other information that was then used to obtain unauthorized access into the online Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts.  Once members of the Scheme logged into Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts without authorization, they altered information in those compromised accounts and diverted driver funds to bank accounts they controlled.  PINA personally called Company-1 and Company-2 drivers to obtain their login credentials, hacked the accounts of Company-1 and Company-2 drivers, and recruited others into the Scheme. Scheme members compromised hundreds of Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts and stole millions of dollars from Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts.

*                *                *

In addition to the prison term, Judge Rakoff ordered PINA, 24, of the Bronx, New York, to make court-ordered restitution in the amount of $198,663 to Company-1 and $243,112 to Company-2.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the United States Secret Service.  Mr. Berman further thanked the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office for their assistance and cooperation throughout this case, and also thanked the FBI’s Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force for their assistance. 

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Sheb Swett and Noah Solowiejczyk are in charge of the prosecution.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pLPVMzEdH_L3VgNc2UzbiSfyLziRUcJWM10jO6axUL4
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:46:15 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 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
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:17-mj-08785
Case Name:   USA v. Pina et al
  Press Releases:
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and David E. Beach, Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Secret Service, New York Field Office (“USSS”), announced charges today against 13 individuals in connection with a scheme to defraud drivers of two ride-sharing companies (“Company-1” and “Company-2”) by accessing those drivers’ accounts without authorization in order to divert driver funds to bank accounts controlled by the defendants and other members of the scheme (the “Scheme”).  Through the course of the Scheme, the defendants compromised thousands of Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts, and diverted millions of dollars from those accounts.  Defendants LOUIS PINA, MALIK GRAY, GEORGE JOSEPH, AKEEM KRUBALLY, THERESA OUTERBRIDGE, DEVON WILLIAMS, HAKEEM BALDEO, QUINTEEN LYNCH, KHALID NAZZAL, FRANCISCO VIRUET, JOHNNY SERRANO, THALIA CAQUIAS, and TANESHA FORD were charged in two Complaints (the “Complaints”) unsealed today in Manhattan federal court.  WILLIAMS, BALDEO, LYNCH, NAZZAL, VIRUET, CAQUIAS, and FORD were arrested today and presented this afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman in Manhattan federal court. 

 

Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said:  “These 13 defendants allegedly developed a sophisticated scheme to swindle hard-working drivers out of their income.  Through elaborate identity theft and phishing, the defendants allegedly diverted millions of dollars from company accounts to line their own pockets.  Thanks to the skilled investigative work of the Criminal Investigators of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Secret Service, the defendants now will be held to account.”

 

David E. Beach, Special Agent in Charge of the USSS said:  “The success in this case demonstrates the investigative capabilities of the United States Secret Service and the collaborative efforts of our law enforcement partners, specifically the U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of NY, Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force, and Westchester County District Attorney’s Office.  The Secret Service will continue to develop innovative ways to protect the financial infrastructure of the United States and combat criminals who use emerging technologies to conduct business.”

According to allegations contained in the two Complaints[1]:

 

Overview of the Scheme

 

The charges in the Complaints result from a Scheme to defraud livery drivers and ride-sharing companies using mobile ride-sharing applications.  The Scheme targeted drivers associated with Company-1 and Company-2.  Scheme members called Company-1 and Company-2 drivers posing as Company-1 and Company-2 representatives, and deceived the drivers into providing unique personal identifiers and other information that was then used to obtain unauthorized access into the online Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts.  Once members of the Scheme logged into Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts without authorization, they altered information in those compromised accounts and diverted driver funds to bank accounts they controlled.

 

Overview of the Company-1 Scheme

 

With respect to the Scheme involving Company-1, members of the Scheme ordered rides on the Company-1 mobile application (“App-1”), which provided Scheme members with the driver’s name, picture, and an anonymized phone number so that the rider could communicate with the driver.  Scheme members canceled the rides shortly after receiving the driver’s anonymized phone number.  The Scheme members then called the driver on the driver’s anonymized telephone number impersonating a representative from Company-1.  During the call, the Scheme member would ask the driver for the driver’s true telephone number and, while remaining on the phone with the driver, the Scheme member would attempt to log into the driver’s Company-1 account.  The driver then received a text message from Company-1 containing a unique code on the driver’s cellphone, and the Scheme member impersonating a Company-1 representative then requested that the driver provide this unique code to the Scheme member.  In addition, during the call, Scheme members would request that the driver provide the driver’s license number. 

 

Using the victim driver’s telephone number, driver’s license number, and the unique code, Scheme members thereafter logged into the victim driver’s Company-1 account through App-1 or the Company-1 web interface without the driver’s authorization.  After Scheme members obtained unauthorized access to the victim driver’s account, they changed the bank account information associated with the account to a bank account that either they or another Scheme member controlled.  Once the victim driver’s account had been compromised and the bank account information altered, funds that the victim driver earned from Company-1 were diverted to Scheme members’ bank accounts.

 

Overview of the Company-2 Scheme

 

With respect to the Scheme involving Company-2, members of the Scheme ordered rides on the Company-2 mobile application (“App-2”), which provided Scheme members with the driver’s name, picture, and an anonymized phone number so that the rider could communicate with the driver.  Scheme members canceled the rides shortly after receiving the driver’s anonymized phone number.  The Scheme members then called the driver on the driver’s anonymized telephone number impersonating a representative from Company-2.  During the call, the Scheme member would ask the driver for the driver’s true telephone number.  The Scheme member would then tell the victim driver that Company-2 would be sending the driver a link to a website that the driver must use to verify the driver’s information in order to obtain a bonus from Company-2. 

 

Thereafter, the Scheme member sent the victim driver a link to a malicious website (the “Fraudulent Company-2 Website”), that was controlled by Scheme members.  The Fraudulent Company-2 Website was designed to appear as if it were a website maintained by Company-2, and requested, among other information, the driver’s login credentials, including the driver’s phone number, email address, and unique Company-2 password.  Once the victim driver had entered this information on the Fraudulent Company-2 Website, Scheme members used the driver’s login credentials to log into the driver’s account through App-2 or the Company-2 web interface without the driver’s authorization.  Once Scheme members logged into the victim driver’s Company-2 account, Scheme members changed the bank account information associated with the account to a bank account that either they or another Scheme member controlled.  Once the victim driver’s account had been compromised and the bank account information altered, funds that the victim driver earned from Company-2 were diverted to Scheme members’ bank accounts.

 

The Defendants' Participation in the Scheme

 

Through the course of the Scheme, the defendants compromised thousands of Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts, and stole millions of dollars from Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts.  After receiving unauthorized transfers from Company-1 and Company-2, Scheme members withdrew the fraudulent proceeds from bank accounts, typically through large cash withdrawals or large purchases. 

 

Scheme members played different, and, at times, multiple roles in the Scheme.  “Recruiters” – including LOUIS PINA, MALIK GRAY, GEORGE JOSEPH, and DEVON WILLIAMS – used social media, including Snapchat, to bring new people into the Scheme and to coordinate the Scheme. 

 

“Callers” – including LOUIS PINA, MALIK GRAY, GEORGE JOSEPH, DEVON WILLIAMS and HAKEEN BALDEO – made calls to drivers impersonating Company-1 and Company-2 representatives using either their personal phones or a service that allows users to mask the number they use to make phone calls to victim drivers, during which they tricked drivers into providing personal information to allow them to obtain unauthorized access to their driver accounts.

 

“Account Hackers” – including LOUIS PINA, AKEEM KRUBALLY, DEVON WILLIAMS, and JOHNNY SERRANO – logged into Company-1 and Company-2 driver accounts without authorization to change bank account information. 

 

“Money Receivers” – including LOUIS PINA, MALIK GRAY, GEORGE JOSEPH, AKEEM KRUBALLY, THERESA OUTERBRIDGE, HAKEEM BALDEO, QUINTEEN LYNCH, KHALID NAZZAL, FRANCISCO VIRUET, JOHNNY SERRANO, THALIA CAQUIAS, and TANESHA FORD – received unauthorized transfers into their bank accounts from Company-1 and Company-2 as a result of the Scheme, and then withdrew large amounts of cash from those accounts shortly following these unauthorized transfers. 

 

 

*                *                *

 

PINA, 23, of Bronx, NY; GRAY, 21, of Mount Vernon, NY; JOSEPH, 22, of Mount Vernon, NY; KRUBALLY, 21, of Mount Vernon, NY; OUTERBRIDGE, 27, of Mount Vernon, NY; WILLIAMS, 22, of Mount Vernon, NY; BALDEO, 20, of Rye Brook, NY; LYNCH, 27, of Mount Vernon, NY; NAZZAL, 22, of Yonkers, NY; VIRUET, 19, of Bronx, NY; SERRANO, 25, of Bronx, NY; CAQUIAS, 20, of Bronx, NY; and FORD, 21, of Mount Vernon, NY, are each charged with one count of conspiring to commit wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of seven-and-a-half years in prison, and one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory sentence of two years in prison that must be imposed consecutively to any other sentence.  The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

 

Mr. Kim praised the outstanding investigative work of the Criminal Investigators of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the USSS.  Mr. Kim further thanked the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office for their assistance and cooperation throughout this investigation, and also thanked the FBI’s Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force for their assistance. 

 

The case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit.  Assistant United States Attorneys Sheb Swett and Noah Solowiejczyk are in charge of the prosecution.

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the texts of the Complaints and the descriptions of the Complaints set forth below constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZKo7o1j7xO4r7SkZ3a2RpuQeNhwtHZfv3zPOs4XlMFk
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:35:04 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 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
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-NY  1:17-mj-08784
Case Name:   USA v. Caquias et al
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pUhN-ZVMvVcGe62HQWSaUqmQ0cii3vNlZ3qNy1V5000
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 13:35:01 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 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
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