Score:   0.9237
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:18-cr-00589
Case Name:   USA v. Quinones-Velazquez
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PQJ90VDT_wf-trDH8fTcYEsoj4iEomZjNYGLDBeUXYc
  Last Updated: 2025-03-12 13:43:09 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 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-TX  5:18-mj-00697
Case Name:   USA v. Quinones-Velazquez
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gQmGAvPWQUJUnGp1IkRVxVyzCyuCxq8SnZHQuIn9cNc
  Last Updated: 2025-03-12 11:34:03 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 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:   0.9237
Docket Number:   SD-TX  4:18-cr-00271
Case Name:   USA v. Quinonez
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fTqfcV3xalXe1Xt2jzm5p0MUaU0Tzp7dpBrfkxMjk5A
  Last Updated: 2025-03-12 05:24:28 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 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:   0.9237
Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:17-cr-00737
Case Name:   USA v. Cisneros-Quinones
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:17-mj-00817
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3N0YXJyLWNvdW50eS1qdXN0aWNlLXBlYWNlLWFuZC1hbm90aGVyLXNlbnQtcHJpc29uLXJvbGVzLWRydWctdHJhZmZpY2tpbmctb3JnYW5pemF0aW9u
  Press Releases:
McALLEN, Texas – Two Starr County residents, one a former justice of the peace (JP), are now headed to federal prison for their roles in a drug-trafficking organization, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

Roel Valadez Jr., 33, and Diego Alberto Reyes-Roiz, 43, both of Rio Grande City, pleaded guilty March 18 and March 25, respectively.

Chief U.S. District Judge Randy Crane has now ordered Reyes-Roiz to serve a total of 22 years in prison, while former JP Valadez must serve 21 months. Reyes-Roiz must also serve five years of supervised release following release from prison. Valadez will be on supervised release for three years.

In handing down the sentence, Judge Crane found Reyes-Roiz was the leader of a drug-trafficking organization that imported substantial quantities of drugs into the United States from Mexico which was then distributed throughout Texas. Reyes-Roiz was found responsible for the importation of approximately 43 kilograms of meth from Mexico into the United States in addition to large amounts of cocaine and marijuana.

The Court learned about how Valdez had been doing favors for Ignacio Garza - one of the heads of the drug trafficking organization. Garza had received information that authorities had stopped and apprehended one of his drug couriers. Valadez, a JP since 2018, made a series of phone calls to the Starr County jail to see if the courier had been booked, and if so, by whom and reached out to another Justice of the Peace to see if he could be released on his own recognizance.



“As an elected official in Starr County, a judge none the less, Valadez swore an oath to uphold the law,” said Hamdani. “However, he betrayed his oath of office and the citizens of Starr County when he abused his office to assist and protect a local drug-trafficking organization.”   



At the time of his plea, Valadez admitted he had possessed with intent to distribute less than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He also acknowledged he had used his JP position to assist another person in obtaining a low bond for one of his workers that law enforcement had detained.  

Reyes-Roiz will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future. Valadez was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender at a later date.

Garza, 53, Rio Grande City, also pleaded guilty and is set for sentencing Sept. 5. At that time, he faces up to life in federal prison as well as a possible $10 million fine. He remains in custody.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, FBI, Homeland Security Investigations and IRS Criminal Investigations conducted the Organized Crime and Dug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigations with the assistance of local task force officers. OCDETF identifies, disrupts and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found on the Department of Justice’s OCDETF webpage. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patricia Cook Profit and Ted Parran prosecuted the cases.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2ZvcmVpZ24tdHJpby1jaGFyZ2VkLXRyYWZmaWNraW5nLXByb3RlY3RlZC1hbmltYWxz
  Press Releases:
McALLEN, Texas – Three Mexican nationals have been indicted on charges of attempted exportation of wildlife, announced U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

A federal grand jury returned the two-count indictment against Jonathan Roberto Rojas-Casados, 32, Roberto Rojas-Ramirez, 50, and Roberto Angel Roman-Alvarez, 27, today. They are expected to make their initial appearance before a U.S. magistrate judge in the near future.

The charges allege the men attempted to take over 160 animals out of the country.

On Aug. 3, according to the complaint originally filed in the case, the three men drove two vehicles into the Hidalgo Port of Entry and attempted to travel outbound into Mexico. Rojas-Casados and Roman-Alvarez allegedly rode together in a Ford Econoline while Rojas-Ramirez followed behind in a separate vehicle.

The charges allege authorities sent both vehicles for inspection. Upon a search of the Econoline, they allegedly discovered two boxes that contained over 160 animals that were concealed in small plastic containers and fabric bags located within the boxes. Among the animals were snakes, Chinese water dragons, iguanas, scorpions, tarantulas, frogs, geckos and lizards, according to the charges.

Rojas-Ramirez allegedly picked up the wildlife and loaded the boxes into the vehicle. Then, he contacted Rojas-Casados for assistance in transporting the wildlife in exchange for payment, according to the complaint.

The charges further allege that several of the animals are classified as Appendix II wildlife in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES):

 



Quantity





Common Name





Scientific Name





10





Ball Python





Pythons regius





3





Colombian Rainbow Boa





Epicrates maurus





2





Black and White Tegu





Salvator merianae





6





Green Iguana





Iguana iguana





5





Forest Armadillo Lizard





Cordylus jonesii





8





Jackson’s Chameleon





Trioceros jacksonii





2





Russian Tortoise





Testudo horsfieldii





10





Red-eyed Treefrog





Agalychnis callidryas





6





Green and Black Poison Dart Frog





Dendrobates auratus





6





Dyeing Poison Dart Frog





Dendrobates tinctorius





10





Curly-hair Tarantula





Tliltocatl albopilosus





10





Emperor Scorpion





Pandinius imperator



 

It is a violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to export wildlife without a license or permission from the Department of the Interior or Department of Commerce. It is an additional violation of the Lacey Act to export CITES Appendix II wildlife against the ESA. None of the men had a license or permission to export wildlife from the United States, according to the charges.

 

If convicted, they face up to 10 years in prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.  

 

Homeland Security Investigations and Fish and Wildlife Service conducted the investigation with the assistance of Customs and Border Protection and Gladys Porter Zoo. Assistant U.S. Attorney Devin V. Walker is prosecuting the case.

 

An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence.

A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3JvbWFuY2Utc2NoZW1lLWZyYXVkc3Rlci1hZG1pdHMtMy1taWxsaW9uLWNvbnNwaXJhY3k
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A 47-year-old Houston man has entered a guilty plea to wire fraud and conspiracy for a romance scheme targeting citizens nationwide, many of whom were elderly, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.Darlington Akporugo admitted to being a central figure in a long-running romance scheme based in Houston that victimized citizens from Chicago to Kentucky. Akporugo worked with others to lure victims through online romances and then induce them to send money to various bank accounts he controlled.   To further the fraud, Akporugo and his co-conspirators used fake names to contact victims on social media, gain their confidence and then persuade them to invest in non-existent businesses or provide funds for invented personal circumstances.As part of his plea, Akporugo admitted to approaching potential victims, primarily on social media sites such as Facebook, and then directing them to send money to either his or his associates’ bank accounts. That money was often then directed overseas.In addition to collecting cash and wire transfers, Akpourgo also admitted to having victims open lines of credit in his name and, in one case, purchasing a luxury vehicle for his personal use.During the multi-year investigation, authorities were able to identify over 25 victims of the scheme, the majority either retired or of advanced age.     Losses from the fraud ring’s operation total more than $3 million.   “As we unfortunately have seen, victims of romance scams suffer tremendous financial loss, sometimes amounting to their entire life savings,” said Ganjei. “Those have fallen prey to such fraudsters are often too embarrassed to come forward and report the incident to law enforcement. Although this is an understandable reaction, we encourage victims to nonetheless come forward, as their story may help the future victimization of others.”U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge will impose sentencing June 6. At that time, Akporugo faces up to 20 years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.He will remain in custody pending that hearing.Homeland Security Investigations conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Carter prosecuted the case.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  2:19-cr-01938
Case Name:   USA v. Hernandez
  Press Releases:
LAREDO, Texas – Three persons alleged to have been involved in engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license have made their initial appearances in federal court, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick along with Special Agent in Charge Fred Milanowski of the  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Special Agent in Charge Shane Folden, of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Authorities arrested Alejandro Rodriguez, 26, Alejandro Hernandez, 27, and Lewis Rodriguez, 28, all of Laredo, Thursday, April 12. Today, they made their appearance in Laredo federal court. They are set for a preliminary examination hearing on April 20, at 10:00 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Diana Song Quiroga.

According to the criminal complaint, on four separate occasions, federal agents purchased 11 AR-type rifles from the three men. Last week, agents seized another 12 AR-type rifles as part of an undercover operation. The charges allege two of those weapons were fully automatic firearms. None of the firearms had any identifying markings or serial numbers, according to the complaint.  

“ATF targets firearms smuggling organizations, because stopping the flow of weapons illegally exported from the United States is a top priority," said Milanowski. “These offenders and their networks must be dismantled, as they remain a serious threat here in the United States.” 

“Stopping the flow of weapons illegally exported into Mexico is an urgent priority for HSI,” said Folden. “HSI along with its federal partners will continue to target firearms smuggling organizations and dismantle the networks responsible for supplying these egregious offenders before they fall into the hands of drug cartels which pose a threat here in the United States and abroad.”

If convicted, each faces up to five years imprisonment and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.

ATF and HSI are conducting the investigation with the assistance of Border Patrol, U.S. Marshals Service and the Laredo Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Giselle S. Guerra is prosecuting the case. 

 A criminal complaint is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence.A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law. 

###

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yGYUXNOmh64Y9bWE38WNnNwuSawgyKMUAgyQou1z2FM
  Last Updated: 2025-03-23 02:32:48 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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

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

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

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

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

Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  2:19-mj-03758
Case Name:   USA v. Hernandez
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fdnymm4rm8ezuvOUbXFonNtsKKLJL81yf0skQeGyGhY
  Last Updated: 2025-03-22 23:08:01 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 FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

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

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

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

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

Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3

Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3

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

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4

Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4

Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3

Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8

Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3phcGF0YS1tYW4tYWRtaXRzLWZsZWVpbmctY2hlY2twb2ludC02My1oaWRkZW4tdHJhaWxlcg
  Press Releases:
LAREDO, Texas - A 30-year-old Zapata man has entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to transport aliens within the country, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick.

On Jan. 21, Leonidas Navarro drove a semi-truck and trailer combination through the Laredo North Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 35. Upon inspection, a K-9 alerted to the presence of contraband in the trailer. Navarro also could not provide a bill of lading for the goods he was supposedly transporting. He was then referred to secondary inspection.

However, rather than complying, Navarro increased his speed and drove through a fence and into a field before he ultimately crashed. He jumped out of the truck and attempted to flee, but was soon captured.

Authorities found a total of 63 aliens that had been hidden inside the truck. None were seriously injured during the crash.

U.S. District Court Judge Diana Saldaňa will impose sentencing at a later date, at which time Navarro faces up to 10 years in federal prison.

He has been and will remain in custody pending that hearing.

Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations conducted the investigation with the assistance of Border Patrol. Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Harrison is prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2xhcmVkby1yZXNpZGVudC1hZG1pdHMtcG9zc2Vzc2luZy1maXJlYXJtLWVxdWlwcGVkLW1hY2hpbmVndW4tY29udmVyc2lvbi1kZXZpY2U
  Press Releases:
LAREDO, Texas – A 28-year-old man has pleaded guilty to possessing a machinegun, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

On March 12, law enforcement attempted to stop a truck for a traffic infraction with Francisco Isaias Rodriguez riding as a passenger. He exited the vehicle seconds before the stop and began to flee. He was told to stop but he continued on foot.

During the subsequent chase, Rodriguez resisted arrest, ignored commands from authorities and threw a small bag he carried around his shoulder over a fence and into a backyard.

Authorities later recovered the bag and found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol equipped with a machinegun conversion device, commonly known as a “switch.”

The switch altered the firearm’s function to shoot more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, making the firearm a fully-automatic weapon. The bag also contained one Glock pistol magazine with 14 rounds of ammunition, one Kriss extended pistol magazine containing 40 rounds, a pair of black latex gloves, one red and black plastic glove and a black balaclava ski mask.

After his arrest, law enforcement searched the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record for any records pertaining to a registered machinegun, short-barreled rifle or any other weapon under Rodriguez’s name. There were none.  

As part of his guilty plea, Rodriguez admitted to knowing federal law prohibits him from possessing the machinegun.

U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo will impose sentencing at a later date. At that time, Rodriguez faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.

He will remain in custody pending that hearing.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Laredo Police Department conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Bajew is prosecuting the case.

This case is being prosecuted as part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF is the largest anti-crime task force in the country. OCDETF identifies, disrupts and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found on the Department of Justice’s OCDETF webpage.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2Zvcm1lci1vZmZpY2VyLXNlbnQtcHJpc29uLWFjY2VwdGluZy1icmliZQ
  Press Releases:
McALLEN, Texas – A 48-year-old Mission resident has been ordered to federal prison after allowing drugs into the country, announced U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

Oziel Cantu is a former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer. He pleaded guilty April 1, 2021, to one count of bribery of a public official.

Today, U.S. District Judge Micaela Alvarez handed Cantu a 120-month sentence to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release. In handing down the sentence, Judge Alvarez noted this type of case bothers her every single time and it is very difficult to understand the situation in which Cantu put himself. She informed him that everyone in the court room has been in a difficult financial situation before and yet none of them resorted to crime. Judge Alvarez stated that she would not let law enforcement corruption slide.

The investigation began after authorities suspected Cantu had contacted members of a Mexican drug trafficking organization to offer his assistance in smuggling narcotics through the Pharr Port of Entry where he was stationed for payment.

During an undercover operation, Cantu had agreed to assist with importing 40 kilograms of cocaine in exchange for a cash payment of $15,000. Cantu provided instructions on how to drive a vehicle containing the narcotics through a specific inspection lane during the early morning hours on Aug. 19, 2020. Once there, Cantu would let the vehicle pass into the United States.  

Cantu was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

The Department of Homeland Security - Office of Inspector General and CBP – Office of Professional responsibility conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney M. Alexis Garcia prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3dob2xlc2FsZXItZmFrZS10YWdzLXNlbnRlbmNlZC1zZWxsaW5nLWh1bmRyZWRzLXRob3VzYW5kcy1pbGxlZ2FsLXRleGFzLXBhcGVyLXRhZ3M
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A 43-year-old woman has been sentenced for providing false information in order to access the state database to print illegal tags and then sell them to other sellers on the internet, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

Leidy Hernandez Lopez pleaded guilty May 10, 2023, to conspiring with others residing in the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere, to buy and sell thousands of fraudulent Texas-issued temporary buyer tags for cars in and outside of Texas without a legitimate vehicle purchase.

U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks Jr. has now ordered Lopez to serve 30 months in federal prison to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release. The court also ordered Hernandez Lopez to pay restitution to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles in the amount of $316,820. 

At the hearing, the court heard how she and others engaged in a widespread fraud to use fictitious car dealerships to generate and sell Texas temporary buyer tags without actually selling cars. In handing down the sentence, the court noted that while Lopez may not have known what the consequences of her actions were, she nonetheless placed peoples’ lives at risk by providing fake tags that were used in crimes such as drive by shootings. 



“The harm in this case was more than monetary,” said Hamdani. “In selling fake vehicle tags to other sellers, Lopez provided criminals with the means to create ghost cars that were invisible to law enforcement which were used to commit crimes that posed a hazard to the public ranging from driving without insurance to committing robberies and drive-by shootings.”



Lopez and co-conspirators used the internet to buy and sell the fraudulent state-issued buyer tags and exchange proceeds from the illegal tag sales.

At the time of her plea, Lopez acknowledged she and her co-conspirators communicated via email where she would deliver fraudulent buyer tags to sellers who then re-sold them to purchasers all over the United States, including New York, Florida and Washington, D.C.

She also admitted she received fraud proceeds via electronic payment services such as Cash App and Zelle.

Lopez was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

Emmanuel Padilla Reyes aka Christian Hernandez Bonilla or Noel Rivera is still a fugitive in this case. The FBI is offering a $5,000 reward to anyone providing information that directly leads to his arrest. Those with information about the fugitive’s location should call 1-800-CALL-FBI or email www.TIPS.FBI.GOV

The FBI conducted the investigation with assistance of Travis County Precinct 3 Constable’s Office, Houston Police Department, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, Harris County Sheriff’s Office, New York State Police and New York City Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Belinda Beek and Adam Goldman prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2Fub3RoZXItc2VudGVuY2VkLTIzLW1pbGxpb24tZnJhdWQtc2NoZW1l
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – Another person has been ordered to federal prison in relation to a $23 million nonexistent commercial accounts receivable scheme, announced U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson along with Special Agent in Charge Rick Goss of IRS-Criminal Investigation (CI).

 

Stefano Guido Vitale, 40, of Scottsdale, Arizona, pleaded guilty March 21, 2016. Co-defendants Alan Leschyshyn, 53, of Cave Creek, Arizona; Bree Ann Davis, 40, of Lakewood, Colorado, and Tammie Roth Hanania, 59, and Edward Peter Hanania, 64, both of Folsom, California, all had previously entered their respective guilty pleas. All were convicted of conspiring to engage a scheme to defraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Vitale and Leschyshyn were also convicted of eight additional counts of wire fraud.

 

Today, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore sentenced Vitale to serve a total of 262 months in federal prison immediately followed by three years of supervised release. The court also ordered he pay restitution of $6,177,069.11.

 

In November 2016, Leschyshyn was ordered to serve 235 months followed by five years of supervised release. Tammie and Edward Hanania were ordered to serve 12 months and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. Davis will be sentenced later this month.

 

The scheme produced approximately $6.4 million in fraudulently obtained proceeds which the defendants agreed to launder through various bank accounts. They executed the scheme to defraud by using and establishing various business entities to sell, at a discount, nonexistent commercial accounts receivable. The defendants would approach factoring companies as sellers of customized gaming vault bundles and present fabricated invoices as evidence the defendants were owed a certain amount of money for goods provided to another one of their business entities. To establish creditworthiness of these companies and to convince the factoring company the credit risk was minimal, the defendants fabricated and/or altered documents and provided them to the factoring company.

 

The fraud conspiracy also proved that Vitale and Leschyshyn defrauded BOKF, NA, doing business as Bank of Arizona, when they applied for and received a $1 million line of credit secured by the Export Import Bank of the United States.

 

Vitale will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

 

IRS-CI conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa Annis is prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  6:17-cr-00091
Case Name:   USA v. Carson
  Press Releases:
VICTORIA, Texas – A 48-year-old Victoria man has been ordered to federal prison following his convictions on 10 counts of wire fraud, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick. Murray Wade Carson pleaded guilty July 2, 2018.

Today, Senior U.S. District Judge John Rainey handed Carson a 27-month sentence to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release. At the hearing, additional testimony was provided that described how Carson used sophisticated means to cimmit is fraud. In handing down the sentence, the court noted that it was incredible that the crime went on for eight years until an auditor figured it out. “That was the only thing that stopped you,” said Rainey. 

At the time of his plea, Carson admitted he devised a scheme to defraud his employer by charging his employer for the purchase non-existent goods and products from the Kirby Taylor Company (KTC). Carson had set up KTC and concealed that information from his employer.

Carson admitted he submitted invoices from KTC for nonexistent goods, which he purchased using his employer issued credit card. He then used his home computer to submit charges for these nonexistent goods.

The scheme lasted from approximately 2007 through June 2015.  

Carson was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.  

The FBI conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Braddock is prosecuting the case.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/142hgKeoden-1fHHtwAgU_1_yHOwSYt9VLosezwQCisM
  Last Updated: 2025-03-11 21:57:15 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: 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 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:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2Zvcm1lci1hdHRvcm5leS1hbmQtb3RoZXJzLXNlbnQtcHJpc29uLW1vbmV5LWxhdW5kZXJpbmctYW5kLWF1dG8tbG9hbi1zY2hlbWU
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – Three people have been ordered to federal prison following their convictions of money laundering for their participation in a Houston-based bank fraud and money laundering scheme, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez.  

 

Houston resident Jason Ryan Hall, 36, pleaded guilty Aug. 15, 2016, while disbarred former attorney Howard Price Johnson, 63, from Salt Lake City, Utah, and Ohio resident Anissa Lavon Burdett, 50, pleaded guilty Sept. 29, and 23, 2016, respectively. 

 

Today, U.S. District Judge Alfred Bennett ordered Hall to serve an 18-month sentence to be immediately followed by two years of supervised release. Johnson was previously sentenced to a term of 12 months and a day, while Burdett was ordered to serve six months in prison. At the hearing today, additional evidence was presented about Hall’s role in orchestrating the scheme. He was further ordered to pay restitution to the victim banks of $484,070.76 and forfeit $21,000 to the United States.

 

The three individuals participated in an automobile loan fraud scheme centered in Houston spanning April through November 2011. Hall held himself out as a used car dealer who sold luxury vehicles through his alleged Houston car dealerships “EZ Auto Group” and “1st Choice Motors.” Hall’s alleged dealerships, however, existed only as websites that Hall created. They had no physical existence, owned no cars and made no actual auto sales. 

 

Acting as “straw buyers,” Johnson, Burdett and others applied to lenders for auto loans in order to purchase used Mercedes and Lexis cars from Hall’s supposed dealerships. In reality, no vehicles were purchased and Hall had none to sell. In their auto loan applications, the straw buyers made multiple misrepresentations to prospective lenders and submitted fraudulent documents Hall created and supplied in support of the loan applications. These fraudulent documents included fake bills of sale of the cars that were the subject of the loans and fake W-2 forms that purported to show gainful employment by the straw buyers that would qualify them for the loans. 

 

Once the auto loans funded and the funds had been deposited into the bank accounts of the alleged dealerships, Hall kicked-back a portion of the loan funds to the straw buyers. Hall delivered no vehicles to the straw buyers and delivered no vehicle titles to the lenders. The straw buyers failed to pay off their loans, causing the loans to go into default. During the scheme, straw buyers applied for a total of 16 fraudulent auto loans with a combined value of approximately $695,741.

 

Hall was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

 

IRS-Criminal Investigation and U.S. Secret Service investigated. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert S. Johnson prosecuted the case.

 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2hvdXN0b24tYXJlYS1tYW4tYXJyZXN0ZWQtMTJtLW5hdGlvbndpZGUtdGVsZW1hcmtldGluZy1zY2hlbWU
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A 46-year-old man has been arrested for participating in a telemarketing scheme that scammed over 100 individuals and received over $1 million in fraudulently collected funds, announced U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

Law enforcement took Michael K. Laurendeau into custody this morning. Formerly of Pearland and now residing in Houston, he is expected to make his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sam S. Sheldon today at 2 p.m.

According to the 15-count indictment returned May 4 and unsealed today upon his arrest, Laurendeau is the owner of E-Business Financial LLC and Blue Star Hosting LLC.

From January 2015 to August 2019, Laurendeau and co-conspirators allegedly deceived over 134 victims by convincing them they were entitled to unclaimed money from prior investments in websites or webpage domains. Laurendeau and others told them they had to pay fees or taxes via certified checks or money orders to Laurendeau’s businesses to receive their money, according to the allegations.

Laurendeau and co-conspirators allegedly used aliases such as Richard Phelps, Ian Sharpe, Kelly Fisher and Mary Benson to victimize people who lived all over the country, many of whom were over the age of 55.

The indictment further alleges none of the victims ever received any funds from this scheme. Additionally, Laurendeau convinced many of the victims to send in additional checks after the victims did not receive any return on their first payments, according to the charges.

As a result of their scheme, Laurendeau and others allegedly received over $1.2 million. The indictment alleges the money was then spent on trips, dinners, a car and other goods.

Laurendeau is charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud and 14 counts of mail fraud. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine on each count.

The Pearland Police Department and the FBI conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Wakefield is prosecuting the case.

An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3RhbmstdmVzc2VsLW9wZXJhdG9yLWFuZC1tYXN0ZXItY29udmljdGVkLW9pbC1hbmQtZ2FyYmFnZS1vZmZlbnNlcw
  Press Releases:
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - Sea World Management & Trading Inc. and Edmon Fajardo were convicted today for maintaining false and incomplete records relating to the discharge of oil and garbage from an oil tanker that was operating off the coast of Texas, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick and Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Wood.

Sea World Management & Trading Inc. is a tank vessel operating company, and Fajardo is the master of the tank vessel Sea Faith. Both admitted that oil cargo residues and machinery space bilge water were illegally dumped from the Sea Faith directly into the ocean while the vessel was transiting to Corpus Christi without the use of required pollution prevention equipment. They also admitted that these discharges were not recorded in the vessel’s Oil Record Book as required. Specifically, on five different occasions between March 10, 2017, and March 18, 2017, Fajardo ordered crew members to illegally discharge oily waste from various locations of the vessel’s cargo/deck spaces. These oily waste discharges bypassed the use of the vessel’s required oil discharge monitoring equipment and were done while the vessel was in the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.

Sea World Management & Trading Inc. and Fajardo further admitted that on March 10, 2017, and March 15, 2017, Fajardo ordered crew members to throw plastics, empty steel drums, oily rags, batteries and empty paint cans directly overboard into the ocean. None of these garbage discharges were recorded as required in the vessel’s Garbage Record Book. 

Sea World Management & Trading Inc. and Fajardo pleaded guilty to two felony violations of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships for failing to accurately maintain the Sea Faith’s Oil Record Book and Garbage Record Book. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the company will pay a total fine of $2.25 million and serve a three-year term of probation during which all vessels the company operated and calling on U.S. ports will be required to implement a robust Environmental Compliance Plan. Fajardo was also sentenced today to six months in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. 

The U.S. Coast Guard Corpus Christi Sector, U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service and Environmental Protection Agency-Criminal Investigation Division conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney-In-Charge Julie K. Hampton and Trial Attorney Stephen Da Ponte of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Department of Justice prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2xvY2FsLW1hbi1zZW50LXByaXNvbi10YXgtZXZhc2lvbi1hbmQtYmFua3J1cHRjeS1mcmF1ZA
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A man who evaded payment of his income taxes has been ordered to federal prison, announced U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

David Felt pleaded guilty May 9.

Today, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered Felt to serve 18 months in federal prison. Judge Hanen also ordered Felt to pay $250,000 in restitution to the IRS.

According to the plea agreement filed in the record of the case, Felt admitted that he willfully evaded payment of income taxes he owed for 1986-87 and 1994-98. 

He further admitted he received over $4 million in income during 2004-14, none of which was paid towards the owed taxes. Felt falsely stated he had no significant assets or income and had no ownership in any businesses.

In addition, he also admitted he acted as a disbursing agent for a debtor in a bankruptcy case. He testified in 2017 that he would not pay insiders from the estate of the debtor while the debtor paid creditors. However, as part of his plea, he admitted he filed monthly accounting reports for the debtor in 2019 containing payments to insiders, including himself, from the estate of the debtor.

Felt was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

IRS - Criminal Investigation and the FBI conducted the investigation with the assistance of the U.S. Trustee's Office. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Quincy L. Ollison and Charles J. Escher prosecuted the case.   

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2hvbmR1cmFuLWNpdGl6ZW4tbGF0ZXN0LWFkbWl0LXNlbGxpbmctdGhvdXNhbmRzLWZyYXVkdWxlbnQtdGVtcG9yYXJ5LXRleGFzLWxpY2Vuc2U
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A 41-year-old woman who illegally resided in Houston has admitted to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

Leidy Areli Hernandez Lopez pleaded guilty to conspiring with others residing in the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere to buying and selling thousands of fraudulent Texas-issued temporary buyer tags. None of the paper tags issued were for legitimate vehicle purchases and some were for cars outside of Texas.

Lopez and co-conspirators used the internet to buy and sell the fraudulent state-issued buyer tags and exchange proceeds from the illegal tag sales.

As part of her plea, Lopez acknowledged she and her co-conspirators communicated through email to send and deliver fraudulent buyer tags to purchasers all over the United States, including New York and Washington, D.C.

She also admitted her co-conspirators submitted falsified information to the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to obtain a fraudulent used car dealer license in order to print and sell state-issued buyer tags and shared the fraud proceeds via electronic payment services such as Cash App and Zelle.

U.S. District Judge George C. Hanks Jr. accepted the plea and will impose sentencing Oct. 2. At that time, Lopez faces up to five years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.

Lopez was permitted to remain on bond pending that hearing.

Emmanuel Padilla Reyes aka Christian Hernandez Bonilla or Noel Rivera is still a fugitive. The FBI is offering a $5,000 reward to anyone providing information that directly leads to his arrest. Those with information about the fugitive’s location should call 1-800-CALL-FBI.

The FBI conducted the investigation with assistance of Travis County Precinct 3 Constable’s Office, Houston Police Department, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, Harris County Sheriff’s Office, New York State Police and New York City Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Belinda Beek and Adam Goldman are prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2dvaW5lcy1pbmRpY3RlZC1mZWRlcmFsLWNpdmlsLXJpZ2h0cy1jaGFyZ2U
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON - Three people, including two former officers, are now in custody in relation to the fatal events that occurred in January 2019 on Harding Street in Houston, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick along with Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and Special Agent in Charge Perrye K. Turner of the FBI.

A federal grand jury returned the nine-count indictment Nov. 14 against Gerald M. Goines, 55, and Steven M. Bryant, 46, both former Houston Police Department (HPD) officers. Also charged is Patricia Ann Garcia, 53. All are residents of Houston. The indictment was unsealed this morning as authorities took all three into custody. They are expected to make their initial appearances before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dena H. Palermo at 2 .m. today.

The federal indictment stems from the Jan. 28 narcotics raid HPD conducted on the 7800 block of Harding Street in Houston. The enforcement action resulted in the deaths of two residents at that location. 

Goines is charged with two counts of depriving the victims’ constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches. The indictment alleges Goines made numerous materially false statements in the state search warrant he obtained for their residence. The execution of that warrant containing these false statements resulted in the death of the two individuals as well as injuries to four other persons, according to the indictment.

Goines and Bryant are charged with obstructing justice by falsifying records. Goines allegedly made several false statements in his tactical plan and offense report prepared in connection with that search warrant. The indictment alleges Bryant falsely claimed in a supplemental case report he had previously assisted Goines in the Harding Street investigation. Bryant allegedly identified a brown powdery substance (heroin) he retrieved from Goines’ vehicle as narcotics purchased from the Harding Street residence Jan. 27.

Goines is further charged with three separate counts of obstructing an official proceeding. The federal grand jury alleged Goines falsely stated Jan. 30 that someone had purchased narcotics at the Harding Street location three days prior. He  also falsely stated Jan. 31 that another individual purchased narcotics at that residence that day, according to the charges. On Feb. 13, he also falsely claimed he had purchased narcotics at that residence on that day. The indictment alleges none of these statements were true.

The charges against Garcia allege she conveyed false information by making several fake 911 calls. Specifically, on Jan. 8, she allegedly made several calls claiming her daughter was inside the Harding Street location. According to the indictment, Garcia added that the residents of the home were addicts and drug dealers and that they had guns – including machine guns – inside the home, according to the indictment. The charges allege none of Garcia’s claims were true.

If convicted of the civil rights charges, Goines faces up to life in prison. Each obstruction count carries a potential 20-year sentence, while Garcia faces a five-year term of imprisonment for conveying false information.

The FBI is conducting the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Alamdar S. Hamdani, Arthur R. Jones and Sharad S. Khandelwal are prosecuting the case along with Special Litigation Counsel Jared Fishman of the department’s Civil Rights Division. 

An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. 

A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1jZGlsL3ByL3RocmVlLXBlb3JpYS1tZW4tc2VudGVuY2VkLXBheWNoZWNrLXByb3RlY3Rpb24tcHJvZ3JhbS1mcmF1ZA
  Press Releases:










PEORIA, Ill. – Three Peoria, Illinois, men were sentenced on September 5, 2023, by U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid for making false statements related to the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Two of the three were also held responsible for fraudulently obtaining unemployment insurance benefits from multiple states.

The PPP provided federal funds to small businesses that were directly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to pay up to eight weeks of payroll costs, rent, utilities and mortgage interest. The program was implemented by the Small Business Administration and administered by third-party lenders. The PPP was enacted via the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, an economic bill that passed in March 2020 in response to the economic fallout caused by the pandemic.

The three men were indicted in October 2022. Kendall A. Mack, 26, pleaded guilty in May 2023 to one count of making a false statement in April 2021 to obtain a PPP loan. From April to September 2021, Mack fraudulently obtained PPP funds to which he was not entitled by submitting a fraudulent PPP application, as well as a fraudulent PPP loan forgiveness application. He was held responsible for losses to the Small Business Administration and Capital Plus Financial, LLC, in the amount of $39,239.08. Mack was sentenced to three years’ probation and imprisonment for a period of time served. Judge Shadid also ordered Mack to pay restitution in the amount of $39,239.08.

Rasheem McCree, 38, pleaded guilty in April 2023 to one count of making a false statement in March 2021 by submitting a false application for PPP funds. He also admitted to fraudulently obtaining unemployment benefits from five states, including the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation; the Arizona Department of Economic Security; the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry; the New York State Department of Labor; and the Illinois Department of Employment Security. McCree was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. Judge Shadid also ordered McCree to pay $89,981.34 in restitution to the SBA and the states.

Adrian Lamont Morris, 27, pleaded guilty in April 2023 to one count of making a false statement in March 2021 by submitting a false application for PPP funds. In addition to the PPP loan, Morris filed for unemployment benefits from Illinois, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania, for a loss to the SBA and those states of $60,642. Morris was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. Judge Shadid also ordered Morris to pay $60,642 restitution.

On their applications, each of the defendants claimed to be the sole proprietor of a barber shop. However, none of them had a registered barber shop, employees, a payroll, or business-related expenses. None were licensed barbers.

In sentencing McCree and Morris, Judge Shadid noted their significant criminal histories. McCree and Morris were ordered to report to the Bureau of Prisons on November 14, 2023.

The statutory penalties for false statements under 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(3) are up to five years’ imprisonment, a possible $250,000 fine, and up to a three-year term of supervised release.

The Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Springfield Field Office, investigated the case. Criminal Chief Darilynn J. Knauss represented the government in the prosecution.











Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL25ldy15b3JrLW9pbC1mdXR1cmVzLXRyYWRlci1zZW50LXByaXNvbg
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A 33-year-old resident of the Bronx, New York, has been ordered to federal prison following his convictions of wire and mail fraud, announced U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson. A federal jury convicted Christopher Donrick Daley Sept. 21, 2016, following a  two-day trial.

 

Today, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, who presided over the trial, handed Daley a total sentence of 120 months in prison. He was further ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $614,950 and will serve three years of supervised release following completion of the prison term. In handing down the sentence, the court noted that Daley tried to appear as a family man when he ate with his victims. “You actually sat down with their children when you knew you were stealing them blind,” Hughes said.

 

Daley devised a scheme to defraud investors by falsely representing he operated a commodity pool which invested in oil futures contracts which would pay investors return of at least 20% per month and had never had a losing month. The evidence at trial showed that Daley received more than $1.4 million in investor funds, but he only invested approximately $195,000.

 

Daley lost all the investors funds he did invest.

 

The evidence also proved that Daley emailed monthly statements to his investors showing significant monthly returns when there were none. Daley also used money from the investor funds to purchase a new BMW and Range Rover.

 

Judge Hughes ordered Daley into custody immediately after the verdict was returned where he will remain pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

 

The FBI conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Braddock and Charles Escher prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3NoaXBwaW5nLWNvbXBhbnktZmluZWQtMTVtLW9pbC1yZWNvcmQtYm9vay1vZmZlbnNl
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – Clipper Shipping A.S. has been convicted of violating the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

Clipper admitted that oily bilge water was discharged from the Motor Tanker Clipper Saturn. As part of the plea, they acknowledged the discharges were omitted from the Oil Record Book.   

Immediately after the plea today, U.S. District Judge Alfred Bennett ordered the company to pay a $1.5 million fine.

On Sept. 27 and Oct. 1, 2021, the Clipper Saturn was anchored near Lome, Togo. The chief engineer at the time directed oily bilge water to be transferred into the vessel’s gray water tank and then discharged directly overboard under the cover of darkness. In order to accomplish the discharge, a section of piping had to be removed and a hose installed onto the eductor system. This arrangement was used to discharge the gray water tank directly overboard. Personnel then re-installed and repainted the piping in the area in order to make it appear that none had been removed. Authorities learned about the discharges during an inspection of the vessel in Houston Oct. 28, 2021.

“Not only did this ship pollute the water, but they tried to cover it up,” said U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani of the Southern District of Texas (SDTX). “To put it simply, Clipper Saturn wanted to get rid of dirty oily water from their ship.  Instead of filtering out the hazardous elements, as required, they decided to cut costs and just release the whole contaminated mess into the sea. Unfortunately for them, they got caught when they docked in Houston. The fine imposed today tells them that there is a bigger cost to endangering our citizens and the environment in which they live, and that the Southern District of Texas will seek to hold those who harm oceans and waterways accountable.”

“We take seriously the crimes of illegally discharging oily bilge water at sea and falsifying records to obstruct the United States’ ability to investigate those discharges,” said Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The U.S. Coast Guard must be able to rely on truthful records on board ships, and the Department of Justice will continue to ensure polluters are held fully accountable.”  

“The Coast Guard is committed to protecting our oceans and waterways from those who deliberately jeopardize the well-being and safety of the environment and the public,” said Coast Guard Capt. Keith Donohue, commander, Sector Houston-Galveston. “The intentional pollution of U.S. waters is a serious violation that we simply will not tolerate. We will continue to work with the Department of Justice and our federal, state and local partners to hold accountable those who choose to endanger our natural resources.”

As part of the plea agreement, Clipper Shipping A.S. will implement an enhanced environmental compliance plan (ECP) on nine vessels. The ECP requires independent auditing and monitoring of the vessels as well as additional conditions to enhance the pollution prevention systems.

This U.S. Coast Guard – Houston Sector and U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service conducted the investigation.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Schammel from the SDTX and Senior Trial Attorney Kenneth E. Nelson of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Department of Justice prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2Zvcm1lci1oY2MtdHJ1c3RlZS1zZW50LXByaXNvbi1icmliZXJ5LWNvbnZpY3Rpb24
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A former trustee with Houston Community College (HCC) has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of bribery of a public official concerning programs receiving federal funds, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick and Special Agent in Charge Perrye K. Turner of the FBI. Chris Oliver, 53, of Houston, pleaded guilty May 15, 2017.

 

Today, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore, who accepted the guilty plea, handed Oliver a 70-month sentence. At the hearing, additional testimony was presented including the fact that Oliver had maintained a position of trust as an elected official, but nonetheless, chose to engage in this criminal activity. It was also noted that the bribes took place over an extended period of time, beginning in 2009 and continuing through 2016. Oliver was further ordered to pay a $12,000 in forfeiture to the FBI and will be required to serve a one-year-term of supervised release following completion of the prison term. In handing down the sentence, Judge Gilmore noted that Oliver had been on the board of trustees for approximately 21 years and that the sentence was necessary to take into account the number and amount of bribes Oliver had received, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law and provide adequate deterrence.

 

“Public officials who use their position for private gain undermine the integrity of government and erode the public's trust in the very framework of our democracy. Today's sentence sends a strong message of the consequences of such actions,” said Turner. “The FBI stands firm with local, state and federal partners in an unwavering commitment to combat public corruption and hold accountable those who choose to abuse the privilege of serving the American people. We rely heavily on the public's help in investigating these crimes and urge anyone with information related to public corruption to report it to the FBI.”

 

At the time of his guilty plea, Oliver admitted he accepted bribes in exchange for the promise of official actions related to his duties as a member of the HCC board of trustees. It was revealed in open court at the plea hearing that Oliver met with another individual on several occasions at various restaurants and coffee shops in Houston where he accepted cash payments in exchange for promising to use his position to help that person secure contracts with HCC.  

 

Oliver later resigned from his position

 

Oliver was permitted to remain on bond and voluntarily surrender to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

 

The FBI conducted the investigation with assistance from the Department of Education - Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew Leuchtmann and Julie Searle are prosecuting the case.

 

If you have information regarding public corruption in the Houston area, please contact the FBI helpline at 713-693-5000.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2Fub3RoZXItaG91c3Rvbi1tYW4tY2hhcmdlZC1jb3ZpZC1yZWxpZWYtZnJhdWQ
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON - A local man has been taken into custody on allegations he fraudulently obtained more than $1.1 million in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick and Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian C. Rabbitt of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

Joshua Thomas Argires, 29, Houston, is charged in a criminal complaint with making false statements to a financial institution, wire fraud, bank fraud and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions.

Argires allegedly perpetrated a scheme to file two fraudulent loan applications seeking more than $1.1 million in forgivable loans. The Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees the loans for COVID-19 relief through the PPP under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. 

The complaint alleges Argires submitted two fraudulent PPP loan applications to federally insured banks. One of these applications was submitted on behalf of an entity called Texas Barbecue; the other was filed on behalf of a company called Houston Landscaping. Argires allegedly claimed these two companies had numerous employees and hundreds of thousands of dollars in payroll expenses.

According to the complaint, neither Texas Barbecue nor Houston Landscaping has employees or pays wages consistent with the amounts claimed in the PPP loan applications. The complaint further asserts that both of these loans were funded, but that none of the funds were used for payroll or other expenses authorized under the PPP. Rather, the funds received on behalf of Texas Barbecue were invested in a cryptocurrency account, while the funds obtained for Houston Landscaping were held in a bank account and slowly depleted via ATM withdrawals, according to the charges.

The CARES Act is a federal law enacted March 29. It is designed to provide emergency financial assistance to millions of Americans who are suffering the economic effects resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief the CARES Act provides is the authorization of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses through the PPP. In April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding.

The PPP allows qualifying small businesses and other organizations to receive loans with a maturity of two years and an interest rate of one percent. Businesses must use PPP loan proceeds for payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent and utilities. The PPP allows the interest and principal to be forgiven if businesses spend the proceeds on these expenses within a set time period and use at least a certain percentage of the loan towards payroll expenses.   

The Federal Housing Finance Agency - Office of the Inspector General (OIG), SBA - OIG and U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Houston Division conducted the investigation. Trial Attorney Timothy A. Duree of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney James McAlister for the Southern District of Texas are prosecuting the case. 

The year 2020 marks the 150th anniversary of the Department of Justice.  Learn more about the history of our agency at www.Justice.gov/Celebrating150Years.

A federal criminal complaint is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2xvbmctdGltZS1mdWdpdGl2ZS1hbmQtcmVwZWF0LWZyYXVkc3Rlci1zZW50LXByaXNvbi1hZ2Fpbg
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – The 75-year-old long time fugitive known as “Butch” Ballow has received a second federal sentence following his admission of defrauding investors in a Nevada company with shares traded on the over-the-counter securities market, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick. Harris Dempsey aka “Butch” Ballow, formerly of formerly of Galveston County, pleaded guilty Feb. 2, 2018, to wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.   

Today, U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. sentenced Ballow to serve 40 years in prison – the statutory maximum. He was further ordered to pay $37,544,944 in restitution. At the hearing, the court heard from one victim whom Ballow defrauded out of $5 million. The victim explained that Ballow used religious pretenses to convince victims to invest money and that he presented himself in Mexico as a type of missionary. He further mentioned that he knew victims who had lost their life saving to Ballow.

Judge Werlein added that in all his decades on the bench, he could not think of a more outrageous fraudulent crime spree, calling it “despicable” and noting there were more than 500 victims.

Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) John Lewis told the judge Ballow was a “financial predator” who would keep committing fraud as long as he was out of jail and explained Ballow had been using fake names to commit fraud since at least the early 1980s when he was convicted of a financial crime against a jewelry store in San Diego.

In this case, Ballow admitted to defrauding investors in E-SOL International Corporation.   

At the time of the offense, Ballow was a fugitive from justice in the United States. He had previously been convicted of money laundering that centered on misrepresentations made in connection with the purchase and sale of stock. Ballow pleaded guilty in that case before U.S. District Judge David Hittner and was released on bond. He was set for sentencing Dec. 16, 2004, but failed to show, having fled the country for Mexico where he lived for almost five years under a series of fake names. While there, he defrauded numerous investors through a new scheme which is the basis for the sentencing today.

At the time of his plea, Ballow admitted that in 2005, while living as a fugitive in Mexico under the name John Gel, he purchased the majority of the publically traded shares of E-SOL and installed fictitious persons named Robert Remington and Marilyn Desimone as officers. At the time, E-SOL had almost no assets and conducted no business. Nonetheless, over the course of the next four years, Ballow sold E-SOL stock to investors in return for millions of dollars by deceiving them about the company’s assets and finances, while hiding his identity, his criminal convictions and his status as a fugitive.

In June 2008, Ballow pretended to be a banker named Tom Brown and convinced an American investor living in Puerto Aventuras, Mexico, to purchase E-SOL stock for $5 million. Ballow convinced the investor that E-SOL was developing a golf and recreational resort community in the jungle west of Cancun. However, the resort was fictitious and the stock was worthless. Ballow soon fled from Puerto Aventuras and surfaced under a new name a few months later in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where he continued to defraud investors.

Ballow was ultimately arrested by Mexican authorities July 13, 2010, in Nuevo Vallarta, Mexico, and extradited to the United States the following year.

Once in the United States, Judge Hittner ordered him to prison for 10 years in prison and to pay $10 million in restitution for the 2003 money laundering conviction.

Several other persons have been convicted of conspiring to commit wire fraud with Ballow while he was in Mexico and ordered to federal prison including Austin lawyer Patrick Lanier, 69, and Christopher Harless, 65, of Georgetown, who are currently serving a 17 and 20 years in federal prison, respectively. Other co-conspirators are awaiting sentencing or remain fugitives in the case.

The FBI and IRS - Criminal Investigation conducted the investigation with the assistance of the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The United States government also received extensive and valuable assistance from the governments of Mexico and Canada.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys John R. Lewis and Belinda Beek are prosecuting the case.

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