WASHINGTON – A Colorado man was sentenced today in the District of Columbia after he pleaded guilty to a felony charge stemming from his conduct during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020 presidential election.
Klete Derik Keller, 41, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon to 36 months of probation and six months of home confinement. Keller pleaded guilty to one count of felony obstruction of Congress on Sept. 29, 2021.
According to court documents, Keller, a former U.S. Olympic swimmer, traveled to Washington, D.C., from his home in Colorado to attend the “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021, and to listen to former President Trump and others address the crowd. Keller wore a blue jacket with the American flag on the sleeve, an Olympic patch on the front, and “U.S.A.” in large white letters on one sleeve and across the back.
After the rally, Keller marched to the U.S. Capitol building with thousands of others and at approximately 2:30 p.m., Keller breached the restricted Capitol grounds on the west side of the building and eventually climbed the stairs to the Upper West Side, passing by damaged scaffolding intended for the presidential Inauguration.
At about 2:39 p.m., Keller breached the Capitol through the open Upper West Terrace Door on the west side of the building leading to the Rotunda—his phone up and appearance concealed by a beanie, sunglasses, and a bandana pulled over his face. Keller remained in the building and participated in the riot for nearly an hour. Throughout his time in the Capitol, Keller photographed and recorded his surroundings.
By 2:41 p.m., Keller and a large mob of rioters made their way down the Senate Hallway connecting the Rotunda to the Senate Chamber. The mob began chanting at police officers in the area, shouting, “You serve us!” The rioters toward the front of the mob began pressing up against police. Keller joined the mob, moved forward and began leading chants of “F—Nancy Pelosi!” and “F— ChuckSchumer!”
Following Keller’s chants, the mob of rioters began to push forward against the officers. Other rioters began chanting, “Our house!”, “F— McConnell!”, and “Push!” while advancing. Some rioters at the front physically engaged with the officers and used a stolen riot shield to push forward while others clad in military-grade tactical gear heaved forward and shouted, “Push! Push! Push! Get in there!” After minutes of using their collective weight to move forward, open-source video shows the rioters prevailed, successfully pushing the line of officers back.
When the rioters began gaining ground toward the Senate Chamber, the officers deployed chemical-irritant spray over the mob. Many of them, including Keller, retreated to the Rotunda. Keller, however, still did not leave the building. By 2:51 p.m., Keller was recording his surroundings throughout the Rotunda and interacting with other rioters unlawfully in the Capitol and continued doing so for over ten minutes. At approximately 3:02 p.m., law enforcement officers entered the Rotunda, attempting to regain control of the area and clear rioters out of the building. Keller refused to leave.
As officers began moving some of the rioters toward the east exit, Keller approached the officers in the center of the Rotunda and resisted the officers’ efforts to clear the building by repeatedly moving to the front of the line and leaning backwards into the line of officers. Court documents say that it took multiple officers to move Keller through the Rotunda and toward the exit. Police repeatedly attempted to remove Keller and the other rioters from the Rotunda. At one point as officers attempted to remove Keller, he ripped his elbow away from an Officer’s grasp and, shaking one of the officers off of him, Keller turned to face the officers and repeatedly yelled, “Take it easy!” and “Settle down!” He defiantly yelled, “Why do we have to leave?”
Finally, at approximately 3:13 p.m., after multiple interactions with officers, Keller exited the Rotunda and entered the East Rotunda Lobby. He remained inside the Lobby for another 17 minutes, clapping and cheering on other rioters. At around 3:30 p.m., officers finally succeeded in ejecting Keller from the Capitol.
Leaving the Capitol, court documents say that Keller was aware of the criminal nature of his actions. Keller threw his U.S.A. Olympic jacket in the trash can on the way back to his hotel. The government was never able to recover that jacket. Keller also took a hammer and smashed his phone into pieces soon after January 6. Despite multiple search warrants and other legal process, the government never recovered any of Keller’s photographs or videos he recorded in or around the Capitol.
Keller was arrested on Jan. 14, 2021, by the FBI.
This case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado.
This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington and Denver Field Offices, including the Colorado Springs Resident Agency. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department.
In the 34 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,200 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 400 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing.
Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov
WASHINGTON— A New Mexico County commissioner was charged today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for breaching the U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021.
Couy Griffin, of New Mexico, was arrested today in Washington, D.C., and charged by criminal complaint with one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful entry.
As alleged in the charging documents, on Jan. 9, 2021, law enforcement received a tip that Griffin, an Otero County, New Mexico, Commissioner was present at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and had posted videos to his Facebook page indicating that he intended to return to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 2021, and “plant our flag” on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk.
An investigation into Griffin revealed that he is the founder of an organization called “Cowboys for Trump,” and that following the incident at the U.S. Capitol, Griffin posted a video to the Cowboys for Trump Facebook page in which he stated that he “climbed up on the top of the Capitol building and . . . had a first row seat.” In that same video, now removed, he states:
“You want to say that that was a mob? You want to say that was violence? No sir. No Ma’am. No we could have a 2nd Amendment rally on those same steps that we had that rally yesterday. You know, and if we do, then it’s gonna be a sad day, because there’s gonna be blood running out of that building. But at the end of the day, you mark my word, we will plant our flag on the desk of Nancy Pelosi and ChuckSchumer and Donald J. Trump if it boils down to it.”
On Jan. 14, 2021, Griffin spoke at an Otero County, New Mexico, council meeting about his experience at the Capitol and his plans to return to Washington, D.C., to protest President-Elect Biden’s Inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021. It is alleged that Griffin stated that he intended to bring his firearms with him when he traveled to Washington, D.C.
The case is being prosecuted by the Assistant U.S. Attorneys Janani Iyengar and Jason Feldman of the District of Columbia United States Attorney’s Office, and Trial Attorney George Kraehe of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice. The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and the U.S. Capitol Police Department.
The ATF and FBI continue to urge the public to report suspected use of explosive devices, or violent, destructive acts associated with the recent unrest. Anyone with information can call 1-888-ATF-TIPS (1-888-283-8477), email ATFTips@atf.gov or submit information anonymously via ReportIt.com.
The FBI is looking for individuals who may have incited or promoted violence of any kind. Anyone with digital material or tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or submit images or videos at fbi.gov/USCapitol.
The charges contained in the complaint are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
A Colorado man pleaded guilty today to a felony charge related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, which disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress that was in the process of ascertaining and counting the electoral votes related to the presidential election.
According to court documents, Klete Keller, 39, of Colorado Springs, was unlawfully inside the U.S. Capitol for nearly an hour on Jan. 6, knowing he did not have permission to be in the building and despite being told to leave. Keller admitted that, at the time he entered the building, he believed that he and others were trying to obstruct, influence and impede an official proceeding. Keller pleaded guilty this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to obstruction of Congress and agreed to fully cooperate with law enforcement in this investigation.
Keller admitted to entering the Capitol building around 2:39 p.m. on Jan. 6 through a hallway on the west side of the building. He was wearing a red, white and blue jacket with the letters “USA” on the back, as well as a light-blue neck gaiter and sunglasses. According to his plea, Keller entered the Rotunda and took photographs and videos of the surroundings. He then proceeded to the Ohio Clock Room hallway, where he stood with others and began filming law enforcement officers who were clad with riot gear and attempting to prevent the group of rioters from advancing. According to his plea, Keller yelled, “F*** Nancy Pelosi!” and “F*** ChuckSchumer!” before others began pushing forward toward the law enforcement officers.
At 2:51 p.m., Keller returned to the Rotunda, where he continued to take photographs and videos. Around 3:02 p.m., law enforcement officers entered the Rotunda to herd rioters toward the east exit. Keller did not leave. At 3:08 p.m., Keller jerked his elbow, shaking law enforcement officers off him as they attempted to remove him from the area. Keller then entered the east Rotunda doors area, where he remained with the crowd, clapping his hands and interacting with others unlawfully present, even while law enforcement officers deployed chemical irritants. Keller exited the Capitol at 3:30 p.m.
According to his plea, on Jan. 6 and Jan. 7, Keller destroyed the phone and memory card that contained the photographs and videos he recorded from inside the Capitol building and threw away his “USA” jacket.
The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado. The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington and Denver Field Offices, including the Colorado Springs Resident Agency.
In the eight months since Jan. 6, more than 600 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including at least 185 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing.
Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.
The charges contained in any criminal complaint or indictment are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The 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
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
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
Assistant U. S. Attorney Adam Gordon (619) 546-6720
SAN DIEGO - Kaylar Junior Tawan Beltranlap, a 21-year-old San Diego resident, was sentenced in federal court today to 156 months in prison for distributing counterfeit oxycodone pills laced with fentanyl that resulted in the death of 15-year-old Coronado High School sophomore Clark Jackson Salveron on May 12, 2021.
Beltranlap pleaded guilty in July, admitting that he used his Instagram account to coordinate a drug transaction with Salveron. According to admissions in his plea agreement, Beltranlap warned Salveron to only take half the pill because it was “strong as hell.”
According to the government’s sentencing memo, on the morning of May 13, 2021, law enforcement officials and paramedics responded to a 911 call from a home in Coronado. Salveron was found deceased in his bedroom. The Medical Examiner’s Office later determined that the teen had died as the result of “acute fentanyl intoxication.”
During a search of Salveron’s room at that time, law enforcement observed a small desk in the corner next to his closet. On the desk was a laptop still open and running. Detectives were able to see the teen’s personal Instagram account which included a conversation with the user account “chefkaylar.” A subsequent database search showed that the username “chefkaylar” was registered to Beltranlap with an address in San Diego. The messages between the two showed that the night before the victim’s death, Salveron and Beltranlap discussed the purchase of “percs.” The next day, law enforcement located and arrested Beltranlap.
Per the plea agreement, Beltranlap and the government stipulated that the Sentencing Guidelines for distribution of a controlled substance resulting in death and/or serious bodily injury would apply.
During today’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo noted that by dealing drugs, the defendant went for the “easy money” with “callous disregard for the poison he was putting into the community and into a very young victim.”
“A 15-year-old child tragically lost his life to fentanyl, leaving behind a devastated family and community.", said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “Parents – the defendant in this case advertised these counterfeit blues on Instagram and Snapchat. I implore you to actively take steps to ensure that your children are not buying drugs online. We invite you to review the Fentanyl Toolkit which describes the various codes used by drug dealers in their online advertisements: https://www.sdpdatf.org/community-parent-fentanyl-toolkit.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and the DEA Overdose Response Team for their excellent work on this case.
“Drug dealers are using social media to target kids,” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Shelly Howe. “Parents, be vigilant about checking your children’s social media, it may save their life. For additional information visit https://www.dea.gov/onepill for resources on fake pills and fentanyl.”
“One child’s death from fentanyl is far too many,” said Chad Plantz, special agent in charge, HSI San Diego. “HSI and our San Diego law enforcement partners will continue our efforts to identify and hold accountable those who sell poisonous drugs in our community.”
“A family lost a child and that is more than any family should have to experience,” said Coronado Police Chief Chuck Kaye. “We are grateful for all the work that went into today’s sentencing.”
In the government’s sentencing memorandum, the Salveron was described by his family as a fun-loving kid with braces, a leader and role model to his younger sister and twin brothers, and a volunteer who always lovingly assisted his disabled grandparents. He was a “kind, sweet, helpful young man who cared deeply about his family.”
In the memo, the boy’s parents described the devastating impact of their son’s death.
“I will never recover from my oldest son being poisoned and taken from me,” his mother said. “Clark had a full life to live and now it’s gone. I will never see my son, graduate high school, go to college, get married, and have grandchildren.”
In explaining how Clark’s death has affected him, the victim’s father wrote: “Everything I did was with (my son). I don’t really go out anymore. We hiked, biked, he was my partner through nature. I don’t feel very deserving…I miss him so much. I cry every day. I think of him all day. I still can’t believe it.”
This case is the result of ongoing efforts by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Drug Enforcement Administration, Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the San Diego Police Department, the California Department of Health Care Services and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office to investigate and prosecute the distribution of dangerous illegal drugs—fentanyl in particular—that result in overdose deaths. The DEA created the DEA Overdose Response Team (formerly Team 10) which investigates overdose deaths in San Diego County. Investigators from the Overdose Response Team, as well as the Coronado Police Department and NTF Team 3, contributed to the investigation into Salveron’s death.
DEFENDANT Case Number 21-CR-3442 CAB
Kaylar Junior Tawan Beltranlap Age: 21 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Distribute of Fentanyl– Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)
SAN DIEGO - Kaylar Junior Tawan Beltranlap of San Diego pleaded guilty today to distributing a counterfeit oxycodone pill laced with fentanyl that killed a 15-year-old Coronado High School sophomore, referred to in court records as C.J.S., on May 12, 2021.
During the change of plea hearing, Beltranlap admitted to utilizing his Instagram account to coordinating a drug transaction with C.J.S. Beltranlap warned C.J.S. to only take half the pill because it was “strong.” Law enforcement responded on May 13, 2021 after learning of C.J.S.’s fatal overdose. Beltranlap was arrested the next day carrying five pills, which also turned out to be counterfeit oxycodone pills laced with fentanyl. In the plea agreement, Beltranlap and the Government stipulated that the Sentencing Guidelines for distribution of a controlled substance resulting in death and/or serious bodily injury will apply.
“C.J.S.’s tragic death must not be in vain. We need to continue to educate our middle and high school age children about the dangers of counterfeit fentanyl pills,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “Our office will continue to pursue these cases to ensure that those who peddle this poison to youth face the full measure of federal prosecution.”
“C.J.S. was child and a member of our community. We know this will not make the family whole but we appreciate the multi-agency collaboration that went into holding this offender accountable.” said Coronado Police Chief Chuck Kaye.
“Parents: I’m pleading with you to please talk to your child – no matter their age - about the dangers of taking a pill that didn’t come from a doctor or pharmacist. Although difficult, this conversation could save your child’s life.” said DEA Special Agent in Charge Shelly S. Howe.
Beltranlap is scheduled to be sentenced on September 30, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. before U.S. District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.
This case is the result of ongoing efforts by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Drug Enforcement Administration, Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the San Diego Police Department, the California Department of Health Care Services and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office to investigate and prosecute the distribution of dangerous illegal drugs—fentanyl in particular—that result in overdose deaths. The DEA created the DEA Overdose Response Team which investigates overdose deaths in San Diego County. Investigators from the Overdose Response Team, as well as the Coronado Police Department and NTF Team 3, contributed to the investigation into C.J.S.’s death.
DEFENDANT Case Number 21-CR-3442 CAB
Kaylar Junior Tawan Beltranlap Age: 21 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Distribute of Fentanyl – Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)
Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison
AGENCY
Drug Enforcement Administration
Homeland Security Investigations
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Coronado Police Department
San Diego Police Department
California Department of Health Care Services
*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Assistant U. S. Attorneys Vivian Sapthavee (619) 546-7696 and Adam Gordon (619) 546-6720
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY—December 28, 2021
SAN DIEGO - Kaylar Junior Tawan Beltranlap of San Diego appeared in federal court today in connection with a grand jury indictment charging him with selling the fentanyl that resulted in the death of a 15-year-old Coronado High School sophomore on May 12, 2021.
Agents and Task Force officers with the Drug Enforcement Administration are leading the investigation into the death. The next court date is set for February 4, 2022 for a Motion Hearing/Trial Setting.
“Every loss of life to opioids is tragic, but the death of a 15-year-old is heart-shattering,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “Our community must recognize the threat to middle and high school students from the plague of fentanyl. This case must be a call to action to educate our children about the extreme danger of experimenting with drugs.” Grossman thanked the prosecution team and investigating agencies for their dedication to this case and to the cause of preventing opioid-related deaths and seeking justice for victims.
“The Coronado Police Department is thankful for the collective work to hold the suspect accountable. We are also reminded that we have a family that lost a child because of a dangerous drug,” - Coronado Police Chief Chuck Kaye.
“Parents: More than ever before, it’s so important to educate your teenager about the dangers of drugs because just One Pill Can Kill,” said DEA Acting Special Agent in Charge Shelly S. Howe. “If you don’t have the conversation with your teen, their friends or a drug dealer will give them inaccurate information and it could cost your child’s life. The DEA has resources available to parents at www.getsmartaboutdrugs.gov.”
This case is the result of ongoing efforts by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Drug Enforcement Administration, Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the San Diego Police Department, the California Department of Health Care Services and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office to investigate and prosecute the distribution of dangerous illegal drugs—fentanyl in particular—that result in overdose deaths. The DEA created Narcotics Task Force (NTF) Team 10 as a response to the increase in overdose deaths in San Diego County. Investigators from Team 10, as well as the Coronado Police Department and NTF Team 3, contributed to the investigation into C.J.S.’s death.
DEFENDANT Case Number 21-CR-3442 CAB
Kaylar Junior Tawan Beltranlap Age: 21 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Distribute of Fentanyl Resulting in Death – Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a) and (b)(1)(C)
Maximum penalty: Life in prison; Twenty-year mandatory minimum
AGENCY
Drug Enforcement Administration
Homeland Security Investigations
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Coronado Police Department
San Diego Police Department
California Department of Health Care Services
*The charges and allegations contained in an indictment or complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are considered innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Acting U.S. Attorney Fred Federici issued the following statement:
The United States Attorney’s Office wishes to extend its deepest sympathies and condolences to the Barth family and our colleagues at the 2nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office for the passing of Chief Deputy District Attorney Chuck Barth. Chuck devoted his professional life to law enforcement, working as a Secret Service agent, prosecutor at the DA’s office, and as a long-time colleague and friend as a career prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. In his latest role as Chief Deputy District Attorney, Chuck was a valued partner to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in helping to coordinate our offices’ joint efforts to fight crime in Albuquerque.
Chuck’s passing is a tremendous loss to the Albuquerque community, and to many of us within the office who worked alongside him for years, a tremendous personal loss. Like his colleagues at the D.A.’s Office, we will miss Chuck and his sense of humor.
WASHINGTON – Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates today announced that Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera, known by various aliases including “El Chapo,” will face charges filed in Brooklyn, New York, following his extradition to the United States from Mexico, alleging that he was operating a continuing criminal enterprise and other drug-related crimes through his leadership of the Mexican organized crime syndicate known as the Sinaloa Cartel.
Acting Attorney General Yates was joined in making the announcement by U.S. Attorney Robert L. Capers of the Eastern District of New York; U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida; Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Executive Associate Director Peter T. Edge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations (HSI); Assistant Director In Charge William F. Sweeney of the FBI New York Field Office: U.S. Marshal Charles G. Dunne of the Eastern District of New York U.S. Marshals Service and Commissioner of the New York City Police Department James P. O’Neill.
Guzman Loera, 59, arrived in the United States on Jan. 19, and will be arraigned on a 17-count superseding indictment on Jan. 20, before U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in federal court in Brooklyn. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan. Following his extradition to the United States on related charges filed in the Western District of Texas and Southern District of California, the Mexican government approved a request by the United States to proceed with prosecution on the charges filed in the Eastern District of New York on May 11, 2016.
The charges in the indictment filed against Guzman Loera in the Eastern District of New York will be prosecuted jointly by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Brooklyn and Miami and the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section of the Criminal Division.
The indictment alleges that between January 1989 and December 2014, Guzman Loera led a continuing criminal enterprise responsible for importing into the United States and distributing massive amounts of illegal narcotics and conspiring to murder persons who posed a threat to Guzman Loera’s narcotics enterprise.
Guzman Loera is also charged with using firearms in relation to his drug trafficking and money laundering relating to the bulk smuggling from the United States to Mexico of more than $14 billion in cash proceeds from narcotics sales throughout the United States and Canada. As part of this investigation, nearly 200,000 kilograms of cocaine linked to the Sinaloa Cartel have been seized. The indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits.
“Guzman Loera is the alleged leader of a multi-billion dollar, multi-national criminal enterprise that funneled drugs onto our streets and violence and misery into our communities,” said Acting Attorney General Yates. “We are deeply grateful to the Government of Mexico for their assistance in securing Guzman Loera’s extradition. The Mexican people have suffered greatly at the hands of Guzman Loera and the Sinaloa Cartel; Mexican law enforcement officials have died in the pursuit of him. We will honor their sacrifice and will honor Mexico’s commitment to combat narco-trafficking by pursuing justice in this case.”
“Guzman Loera is accused of using violence, including torture and murder, to maintain an iron-fisted grip on the drug trade across the U.S./Mexico border that invaded our community and others across the country,” said U.S. Attorney Capers. “As a result, Guzman Loera made billions of illicit dollars. This prosecution demonstrates that we will apply all available resources to dismantle the leadership of dangerous drug cartels, wherever they operate, and will not rest until we have done so.”
“Guzman Loera is accused of terrorizing communities all over the world,” said U.S. Attorney Ferrer. “With this prosecution we stand united, with our domestic and foreign partners, in our fight against transnational criminal organizations that profit billions of dollars off of the toxic spread of illicit drugs in our global communities. Today’s announcement demonstrates that international borders do not protect narcotics traffickers from criminal prosecution. We will continue to work together to combat narco-trafficking and the cartels that infect our streets, with the long-arm of the law.”
“This extradition is a tremendous victory for the citizens of Mexico and of the United States,” said DEA Acting Administrator Rosenberg. “Two principles stand out: No one is above the law and we simply do not quit in the pursuit of justice.”
“Through investigations led by our offices in New York and Nogales, Arizona, and the coordination efforts of our attaché in Mexico, Homeland Security Investigations gathered significant evidence that is instrumental in the case against Joaquin Guzman Loera in the United States for his alleged crimes as the head of the Sinaloa Cartel,” said HSI Executive Associate Director Edge. “We are pleased to have worked with our federal law enforcement partners to bring about yesterday’s extradition, and look forward to sharing the evidence gathered in this investigation in the criminal proceedings that will follow.”
“One of the most dangerous and feared drug kingpins will now be held accountable for his alleged crimes in the United States after decades of eluding law enforcement,” said FBI Assistant Director in Charge Sweeney. “After years of gathering evidence in multiple investigations, the FBI and our law enforcement partners will do everything we can to bring El Chapo to justice.”
“The U.S. Marshals Service will undertake this mission with the same sense of duty that we have undertaken previous missions for the last 228 years,” said U.S. Marshal Dunne. “We will preserve the integrity of the judicial process. We will protect the members of the Eastern District of New York family. We will secure this individual in a humane manner and we will bring him to court on time.”
As detailed in the superseding indictment and other court filings, Guzman Loera and Ismael Zambada Garcia, as leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, conspired to import more than 200 metric tons of cocaine into the United States. The Sinaloa Cartel shared drug transportation routes and obtained drugs from various Colombian drug trafficking organizations, in particular, the Colombian Norte del Valle Cartel, the Don Lucho Organization, and the Cifuentes-Villa Organization. The cocaine was transported from Colombia via planes, boats, and submarines into ports the enterprise controlled in Southern Mexico and other locations throughout Central America. From there, it was shipped through Mexico to distribution hubs in the United States.
As one of the principal leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel, Guzman Loera allegedly also oversaw the cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana smuggling activities by the Sinaloa Cartel to wholesale distributors in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, New York, as well as in various locations in Arizona, Los Angeles and elsewhere. The billions of dollars generated from drug sales in the United States were then clandestinely transported back to Mexico.
To evade law enforcement and protect the enterprise’s narcotics distribution activities, Guzman Loera and the Sinaloa Cartel allegedly employed various means including the use of “sicarios,” or hit men, who carried out hundreds of acts of violence in Mexico, including murder, to collect drug debts, silence potential witnesses, and prevent public officials from taking action against the cartel. To intimidate and eliminate his rivals, during the Sinaloa Cartel’s internecine war for territory with the Juarez Cartel from approximately 2007 through 2011, Guzman Loera directed these assassins to kill thousands of drug trafficking competitors, during which many of his victims were beheaded.
The government’s case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrea Goldbarg, Hiral Mehta, Patricia Notopoulos, Gina Parlovecchio and Michael Robotti from the Eastern District of New York; Assistant U.S. Attorneys Adam Fels, Lynn Kirkpatrick and Kurt Lunkenheimer from the Southern District of Florida; and Trial Attorneys Amanda Liskamm, Anthony Nardozzi and Michael Lang of the Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section.
The case was investigated by the DEA, ICE and the FBI, in cooperation with Mexican and Colombian law enforcement authorities. Substantial assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of Texas, the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of California, and the District of New Hampshire. The Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs also provided assistance in bringing Guzman Loera to the United States to face charges. The investigative efforts in this case were coordinated with the Department of Justice’s Special Operations Division, comprising agents, analysts, and attorneys from the Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section, DEA, FBI, ICE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and the New York State Police.
The United States would like to extend its appreciation to the Government of Mexico and, in particular, President Enrique Peña Nieto, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Videgaray Caso and Attorney General Raul Cervantes Andrade for their assistance in this case.
This case is also the result of the ongoing efforts by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) a partnership that brings together the combined expertise and unique abilities of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, dismantle and prosecute high level members of drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations and enterprises.
An indictment is a formal charging document notifying the defendant of the charges. All persons charged in an indictment are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Guzman faces a sentence of mandatory life imprisonment, if convicted of the continuing criminal enterprise charge, and a maximum sentence of life on the remaining charges.
Largest Health Care Fraud Enforcement Action in Department of Justice History
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, M.D., announced today the largest ever health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, involving 412 charged defendants across 41 federal districts, including 115 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $1.3 billion in false billings. Of those charged, over 120 defendants, including doctors, were charged for their roles in prescribing and distributing opioids and other dangerous narcotics. Thirty state Medicaid Fraud Control Units also participated in today’s arrests. In addition, HHS has initiated suspension actions against 295 providers, including doctors, nurses and pharmacists.
Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Price were joined in the announcement by Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting Director Andrew McCabe of the FBI, Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Inspector General Daniel Levinson of the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), Chief Don Fort of IRS Criminal Investigation, Administrator Seema Verma of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Deputy Director Kelly P. Mayo of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS).
Today’s enforcement actions were led and coordinated by the Criminal Division, Fraud Section’s Health Care Fraud Unit in conjunction with its Medicare Fraud Strike Force (MFSF) partners, a partnership between the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the FBI and HHS-OIG. In addition, the operation includes the participation of the DEA, DCIS, and State Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
charges announced today aggressively target schemes billing Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE (a health insurance program for members and veterans of the armed forces and their families) for medically unnecessary prescription drugs and compounded medications that often were never even purchased and/or distributed to beneficiaries. The charges also involve individuals contributing to the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on medical professionals involved in the unlawful distribution of opioids and other prescription narcotics, a particular focus for the Department. According to the CDC, approximately 91 Americans die every day of an opioid related overdose.
“Too many trusted medical professionals like doctors, nurses, and pharmacists have chosen to violate their oaths and put greed ahead of their patients,” said Attorney General Sessions. “Amazingly, some have made their practices into multimillion dollar criminal enterprises. They seem oblivious to the disastrous consequences of their greed. Their actions not only enrich themselves often at the expense of taxpayers but also feed addictions and cause addictions to start. The consequences are real: emergency rooms, jail cells, futures lost, and graveyards. While today is a historic day, the Department's work is not finished. In fact, it is just beginning. We will continue to find, arrest, prosecute, convict, and incarcerate fraudsters and drug dealers wherever they are.”
“Healthcare fraud is not only a criminal act that costs billions of taxpayer dollars - it is an affront to all Americans who rely on our national healthcare programs for access to critical healthcare services and a violation of trust,” said Secretary Price. “The United States is home to the world’s best medical professionals, but their ability to provide affordable, high-quality care to their patients is jeopardized every time a criminal commits healthcare fraud. That is why this Administration is committed to bringing these criminals to justice, as President Trump demonstrated in his 2017 budget request calling for a new $70 million investment in the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program. The historic results of this year’s national takedown represent significant progress toward protecting the integrity and sustainability of Medicare and Medicaid, which we will continue to build upon in the years to come.”
According to court documents, the defendants allegedly participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for treatments that were medically unnecessary and often never provided. In many cases, patient recruiters, beneficiaries and other co-conspirators were allegedly paid cash kickbacks in return for supplying beneficiary information to providers, so that the providers could then submit fraudulent bills to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never performed. The number of medical professionals charged is particularly significant, because virtually every health care fraud scheme requires a corrupt medical professional to be involved in order for Medicare or Medicaid to pay the fraudulent claims. Aggressively pursuing corrupt medical professionals not only has a deterrent effect on other medical professionals, but also ensures that their licenses can no longer be used to bilk the system.
“This week, thanks to the work of dedicated investigators and analysts, we arrested once-trusted doctors, pharmacists and other medical professionals who were corrupted by greed,” said Acting Director McCabe. “The FBI is committed to working with our partners on the front lines of the fight against heath care fraud to stop those who steal from the government and deceive the American public.”
“Health care fraud is a reprehensible crime. It not only represents a theft from taxpayers who fund these vital programs, but impacts the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid,” said Inspector General Levinson. “In the worst fraud cases, greed overpowers care, putting patients’ health at risk. OIG will continue to play a vital leadership role in the Medicare Fraud Strike Force to track down those who abuse important federal health care programs.”
“Our enforcement actions underscore the commitment of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and our partners to vigorously investigate fraud perpetrated against the DoD's TRICARE Program. We will continue to relentlessly investigate health care fraud, ensure the taxpayers' health care dollars are properly spent, and endeavor to guarantee our service members, military retirees, and their dependents receive the high standard of care they deserve,” advised Deputy Director Mayo.
“Last year, an estimated 59,000 Americans died from a drug overdose, many linked to the misuse of prescription drugs. This is, quite simply, an epidemic,” said Acting Administrator Rosenberg. “There is a great responsibility that goes along with handling controlled prescription drugs, and DEA and its partners remain absolutely committed to fighting the opioid epidemic using all the tools at our disposal.”
“Every defendant in today’s announcement shares one common trait - greed,” said Chief Fort. “The desire for money and material items drove these individuals to perpetrate crimes against our healthcare system and prey upon many of the vulnerable in our society. Thanks to the financial expertise and diligence of IRS-CI special agents, who worked side-by-side with other federal, state and local law enforcement officers to uncover these schemes, these criminals are off the street and will now face the consequences of their actions.”
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations are part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operates in nine locations nationwide. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 3500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $12.5 billion.
*********
For the Strike Force locations, in the Southern District of Florida, a total of 77 defendants were charged with offenses relating to their participation in various fraud schemes involving over $141 million in false billings for services including home health care, mental health services and pharmacy fraud. In one case, the owner and operator of a purported addiction treatment center and home for recovering addicts and one other individual were charged in a scheme involving the submission of over $58 million in fraudulent medical insurance claims for purported drug treatment services. The allegations include actively recruiting addicted patients to move to South Florida so that the co-conspirators could bill insurance companies for fraudulent treatment and testing, in return for which, the co-conspirators offered kickbacks to patients in the form of gift cards, free airline travel, trips to casinos and strip clubs, and drugs.
In the Eastern District of Michigan, 32 defendants face charges for their alleged roles in fraud, kickback, money laundering and drug diversion schemes involving approximately $218 million in false claims for services that were medically unnecessary or never rendered. In one case, nine defendants, including six physicians, were charged with prescribing medically unnecessary controlled substances, some of which were sold on the street, and billing Medicare for $164 million in facet joint injections, drug testing, and other procedures that were medically unnecessary and/or not provided.
In the Southern District of Texas, 26 individuals were charged in cases involving over $66 million in alleged fraud. Among these defendants are a physician and a clinic owner who were indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute and dispense controlled substances and three substantive counts of distribution of controlled substances in connection with a purported pain management clinic that is alleged to have been the highest prescribing hydrocodone clinic in Houston, where approximately 60-70 people were seen daily, and were issued medically unnecessary prescriptions for hydrocodone in exchange for approximately $300 cash per visit.
In the Central District of California, 17 defendants were charged for their roles in schemes to defraud Medicare out of approximately $147 million. Two of these defendants were indicted for their alleged involvement in a $41.5 million scheme to defraud Medicare and a private insurer. This was purportedly done by submitting fraudulent claims, and receiving payments for, prescription drugs that were not filled by the pharmacy nor given to patients.
In the Northern District of Illinois, 15 individuals were charged in cases related to six different schemes concerning home health care services and physical therapy fraud, kickbacks, and mail and wire fraud. These schemes involved allegedly over $12.7 million in fraudulent billing. One case allegedly involved $7 million in fraudulent billing to Medicare for home health services that were not necessary nor rendered.
In the Middle District of Florida, 10 individuals were charged with participating in a variety of schemes involving almost $14 million in fraudulent billing. In one case, three defendants were charged in a $4 million scheme to defraud the TRICARE program. In that case, it is alleged that a defendant falsely represented himself to be a retired Lieutenant Commander of the United States Navy Submarine Service. It is alleged that he did so in order to gain the trust and personal identifying information from TRICARE beneficiaries, many of whom were members and veterans of the armed forces, for use in the scheme.
In the Eastern District of New York, ten individuals were charged with participating in a variety of schemes including kickbacks, services not rendered, and money laundering involving over $151 million in fraudulent billings to Medicare and Medicaid. Approximately $100 million of those fraudulent billings were allegedly part of a scheme in which five health care professionals paid illegal kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals to their own clinics.
In the Southern Louisiana Strike Force, operating in the Middle and Eastern Districts of Louisiana as well as the Southern District of Mississippi, seven defendants were charged in connection with health care fraud, wire fraud, and kickback schemes involving more than $207 million in fraudulent billing. One case involved a pharmacist who was charged with submitting and causing the submission of $192 million in false and fraudulent claims to TRICARE and other health care benefit programs for dispensing compounded medications that were not medically necessary and often based on prescriptions induced by illegal kickback payments.
*********
In addition to the Strike Force locations, today’s enforcement actions include cases and investigations brought by an additional 31 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, including the execution of search warrants in investigations conducted by the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of Ohio.
In the Northern and Southern Districts of Alabama, three defendants were charged for their roles in two health care fraud schemes involving pharmacy fraud and drug diversion.
In the Eastern District of Arkansas, 24 defendants were charged for their roles in three drug diversion schemes that were all investigated by the DEA.
In the Northern and Southern Districts of California, four defendants, including a physician, were charged for their roles in a drug diversion scheme and a health care fraud scheme involving kickbacks.
In the District of Connecticut, three defendants were charged in two health care fraud schemes, including a scheme involving two physicians who fraudulently billed Medicaid for services that were not rendered and for the provision of oxycodone with knowledge that the prescriptions were not medically necessary.
In the Northern and Southern Districts of Georgia, three defendants were charged in two health care fraud schemes involving nearly $1.5 million in fraudulent billing.
In the Southern District of Illinois, five defendants were charged in five separate schemes to defraud the Medicaid program.
In the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, at least five defendants were charged in various health care fraud schemes related to the unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances, kickbacks, and services not rendered.
In the Southern District of Iowa, five defendants were charged in two schemes involving the distribution of opioids.
In the Western District of Kentucky, 11 defendants were charged with defrauding the Medicaid program. In one case, four defendants, including three medical professionals, were charged with distributing controlled substances and fraudulently billing the Medicaid program.
In the District of Maine, an office manager was charged with embezzling funds from a medical office.
In the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, 16 defendants were charged in schemes involving over $16 million in claims, including 10 defendants charged as part of a scheme involving fraudulent lab testing.
In the District of Nebraska, a dentist was charged with defrauding the Medicaid program.
In the District of Nevada, two defendants, including a physician, were charged in a scheme involving false hospice claims.
In the Northern, Southern, and Western Districts of New York, five defendants, including two physicians and two pharmacists, were charged in schemes involving drug diversion and pharmacy fraud.
In the Southern District of Ohio, five defendants, including four physicians, were charged in connection with schemes involving $12 million in claims to the Medicaid program.
In the District of Puerto Rico, 13 defendants, including three physicians and two pharmacists, were charged in four schemes involving drug diversion, Medicaid fraud, and the theft of funds from a health care program.
In the Eastern District of Tennessee, three defendants were charged in a scheme involving fraudulent billings and the distribution of opioids.
In the Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Texas, nine defendants were charged in schemes involving over $42 million in fraudulent billing, including a scheme involving false claims for compounded medications.
In the District of Utah, a nurse practitioner was charged in connection with fraudulently obtaining a controlled substance, tampering with a consumer product, and infecting over seven individuals with Hepatitis C.
In the Eastern District of Virginia, a defendant was charged in connection with a scheme involving identify theft and fraudulent billings to the Medicaid program.
In addition, in the states of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Washington, 96 defendants have been charged in criminal and civil actions with defrauding the Medicaid program out of over $31 million. These cases were investigated by each state’s respective Medicaid Fraud Control Units. In addition, the Medicaid Fraud Control Units of the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah participated in the investigation of many of the federal cases discussed above.
The cases announced today are being prosecuted and investigated by U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide, along with Medicare Fraud Strike Force teams from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and from the U.S. Attorney’s Offices of the Southern District of Florida, Eastern District of Michigan, Eastern District of New York, Southern District of Texas, Central District of California, Eastern District of Louisiana, Northern District of Texas, Northern District of Illinois and the Middle District of Florida; and agents from the FBI, HHS-OIG, Drug Enforcement Administration, DCIS and state Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
A complaint, information, or indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Additional documents related to this announcement will shortly be available here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/documents-and-resources-july-13-2017.
This operation also highlights the great work being done by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. In the past fiscal year, the Department of Justice, including the Civil Division, has collectively won or negotiated over $2.5 billion in judgements and settlements related to matters alleging health care fraud.
MIAMI – Today, a Nigerian national pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to operating a transnational inheritance fraud scheme that defrauded elderly and vulnerable consumers across the United States.According to court documents, Okezie Bonaventure Ogbata, 36, was a member of a group of fraudsters that sent personalized letters to elderly victims in the United States over the course of several years. The letters falsely claimed that the sender was a representative of a bank in Spain and that the recipient was entitled to receive a multimillion-dollar inheritance left for the recipient by a family member who had died overseas years before. Ogbata and his co-conspirators told a series of lies to victims, including that, before they could receive their purported inheritance, they were required to send money for delivery fees, taxes and other payments to avoid questioning from government authorities. Ogbata and his co-conspirators collected money victims sent in response to the fraudulent letters through a complex web of U.S.-based former victims, whom the defendants convinced to receive money and forward to the defendants or persons associated with them. Victims who sent money never received any purported inheritance funds. In pleading guilty, Ogbata admitted to defrauding over $6 million from more than 400 victims, many of whom were elderly or otherwise vulnerable.“The long arm of the American justice system has no limits when it comes to reaching fraudsters who prey on our nation’s most vulnerable populations, to include the elderly,” said U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida. “We will not allow transnational criminals to steal money from the public we serve. Individuals who defraud American consumers will be brought to justice, no matter where they are located.”“The Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch will continue to pursue transnational criminals wherever they are located,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “This case is a testament to the critical role of international collaboration in tackling transnational crime. I want to thank the members of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), as well as the Portuguese Judicial Police and Public Prosecution Service of Portugal, for their outstanding contributions to this case.”“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) has a long tradition of protecting American citizens from these types of schemes and bringing those responsible to justice,” said Acting Postal Inspector in Charge Steven Hodges of the USPIS Miami Division. “This guilty plea is a testament to the dedicated partnership between the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch, HSI and USPIS to protect our citizens from these scams.”“Transnational fraud schemes thrive in the shadows, turning illicit gains into a facade of legitimacy, especially those involving seniors or other vulnerable people,” said Special Agent in Charge Francisco B. Burrola of HSI Arizona. “HSI and our law enforcement partners commitment to investigate criminals who steal money sends a clear message: justice will prevail, and those who exploit others for personal gain will be held accountable. We thank all our partners who assisted in this investigation.”On Jan. 15, Ogbata pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Ogbata is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman on April 14. Ogbata faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.This is the second indicted case related to this international fraud scheme. Six other co-conspirators from the United Kingdom, Spain and Nigeria have previously been convicted and sentenced in connection with this scheme. On Nov. 1, 2023, the Honorable Kathleen M. Williams sentenced Ezennia Peter Neboh, who was extradited from Spain, to 128 months in prison. On Oct. 20, 2023, Judge Williams sentenced another defendant who was also extradited from Spain, Kennedy Ikponmwosa, to 97 months in prison. Three other defendants who were extradited from the United Kingdom also received prison sentences. Judge Williams sentenced Emmanuel Samuel, Jerry Chucks Ozor and Iheanyichukwu Jonathan Abraham to prison sentences of 82 months, 87 months and 90 months, respectively, for their roles in the scheme. Lastly, Prince Amos Okey Ezemma was paroled into the United States from Nigeria and was sentenced to 90 months in prison for his role in the scheme.USPIS, HSI and the Consumer Protection Branch are investigating the case.Senior Trial Attorney and Transnational Criminal Litigation Coordinator Phil Toomajian and Trial Attorneys Josh Rothman and Brianna Gardner of the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch are prosecuting the case. The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, UK National Crime Agency, and authorities from Spain and Portugal all provided critical assistance.If you or someone you know is age 60 or older and has been a victim of financial fraud, help is standing by at the National Elder Fraud Hotline: 1-833-FRAUD-11 (1-833-372-8311). This Justice Department hotline, managed by the Office for Victims of Crime, is staffed by experienced professionals who provide personalized support to callers by assessing the needs of the victim and identifying relevant next steps. Case managers will identify appropriate reporting agencies, provide information to callers to assist them in reporting, connect callers directly with appropriate agencies and provide resources and referrals, on a case-by-case basis. Reporting is the first step. Reporting can help authorities identify those who commit fraud and reporting certain financial losses due to fraud as soon as possible can increase the likelihood of recovering losses. The hotline is open Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET. English, Spanish and other languages are available.More information about the department’s efforts to help American seniors is available at its Elder Justice Initiative webpage. For more information about the Consumer Protection Branch and its enforcement efforts, visit www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch. Elder fraud complaints can be filed with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov/ or at 877-FTC-HELP. The Justice Department provides a variety of resources relating to elder fraud victimization through its Office for Victims of Crime, which can be reached at www.ovc.gov.###
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, M.D., announced today the largest ever health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, involving 412 charged defendants across 41 federal districts, including over 115 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving over $1.3 billion in false billings. Of those charged, over 120 defendants, including doctors, were charged for their roles in prescribing and distributing opioids and other dangerous narcotics. Thirty state Medicaid Fraud Control Units also participated in today’s arrests. In addition, HHS has initiated suspension against 295 providers, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.
Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Price were joined in the announcement by Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting Director Andrew McCabe of the FBI, Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Inspector General Daniel Levinson of the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), Chief Don Fort of IRS Criminal Investigation, Administrator Seema Verma of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Deputy Director Kelly P. Mayo of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS).
Today’s enforcement actions were led and coordinated by the Criminal Division, Fraud Section’s Health Care Fraud Unit in conjunction with its Medicare Fraud Strike Force (MFSF) partners, a partnership between the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the FBI and HHS-OIG. In addition, the operation includes the participation of the DEA, DCIS, and State Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
The charges announced today aggressively target schemes billing Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE (a health insurance program for members and veterans of the armed forces and their families) for medically unnecessary prescription drugs and compounded medications that often were never even purchased and/or distributed to beneficiaries. The charges also involve individuals contributing to the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on medical professionals involved in the unlawful distribution of opioids and other prescription narcotics. According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 91 Americans die every day of an opioid related overdose.
“Too many trusted medical professionals like doctors, nurses, and pharmacists have chosen to violate their oaths and put greed ahead of their patients,” said Attorney General Sessions. “Amazingly, some have made their practices into multimillion dollar criminal enterprises. They seem oblivious to the disastrous consequences of their greed. Their actions not only enrich themselves often at the expense of taxpayers but also feed addictions and cause addictions to start. The consequences are real: emergency rooms, jail cells, futures lost, and graveyards. While today is a historic day, the Department's work is not finished. In fact, it is just beginning. We will continue to find, arrest, prosecute, convict, and incarcerate fraudsters and drug dealers wherever they are.”
“Protecting our nation’s health care programs is a top priority of our Office,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Muldrow. “The coordinated actions today demonstrate our resolve to prosecute those who commit fraud against our health care programs. We will continue in our pursuit against those who violate the law to enrich themselves by defrauding our public systems and its customers by stealing from federal health care programs and the American taxpayers.”
According to court documents, the defendants allegedly participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE for treatments that were medically unnecessary and often never provided. In many cases, patient recruiters, beneficiaries and other co-conspirators were allegedly paid cash kickbacks in return for supplying beneficiary information to providers, so that the providers could then submit fraudulent bills to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never performed. The number of medical professionals charged is particularly significant, because virtually every health care fraud scheme requires a corrupt medical professional to be involved in order for Medicare or Medicaid to pay the fraudulent claims. Aggressively pursuing corrupt medical professionals not only has a deterrent effect on other medical professionals, but also ensures that their licenses can no longer be used to bilk the system.
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations are part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operates in nine locations nationwide. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 3,500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $12.5 billion.
The cases announced today are being prosecuted and investigated by U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide, along with Medicare Fraud Strike Force teams from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and from the U.S. Attorney’s Offices of the Southern District of Florida, Eastern District of Michigan, Eastern District of New York, Southern District of Texas, Central District of California, Eastern District of Louisiana, Northern District of Texas, Northern District of Illinois, and Middle District of Florida; and agents from the FBI, HHS-OIG, Drug Enforcement Administration, DCIS, and state Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
A complaint, information, or indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Additional documents related to this announcement will shortly be available here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/documents-and-resources-july-13-2017.
In the Middle District of Florida, 10 individuals were charged with participating in a variety of schemes.
Middle District of Florida Case Highlights
Richard Martin (56, Orlando), a former sales representative for Advanced BioHealing, Inc. (ABH), has been charged with conspiracy to violate the anti-kickback statute and to commit mail and health care fraud. According to court documents, ABH was a biopharmaceutical company that developed and commercialized bioengineered tissue products and regenerative medicine therapies. In 2006, ABH acquired the rights to Dermagraft, a bioengineered skin substitute approved for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, and began selling the product to treating physicians. The indictment alleges that in late 2010, Martin and others conspired to bill the Medicare Part B program as if an entire Dermagraft (38 square centimeters) was used to treat each Medicare beneficiary. In truth, Martin and others routinely divided or split the skin substitute into multiple sections for applications on multiple Medicare beneficiaries, resulting in double billing. The indictment further alleges that Martin violated the anti-kickback statute by offering and providing free office medical supplies, free Dermagraft samples, multiple meals and other consumables, and uncompensated medical office procedures and services.
Larry B. Howard (53, Oviedo), a pharmacist and the owner and operator of Fertility Pharmacy d/b/a TRICARE Wellness, has been charged with one count of conspiracy to pay and receive illegal kickbacks, two counts of paying illegal kickbacks, and two counts of money laundering. Nicole R. Bramwell (51, Apopka), a physician, and Raymond L. Stone (57, Orlando), a patient recruiter, have each been charged with one count of conspiracy to pay and receive illegal kickbacks and one count of receiving illegal kickbacks. These charges stem from their alleged roles in a $4.3 million compounding pharmacy scheme that impacted the TRICARE program.
Michael J. Anderson (64, formerly of Windermere), a managing member and operator of DMA Logistics LLC, has been charged with one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, and two counts of money laundering. These charges stem from Anderson’s alleged role in a $5.7 million compounding pharmacy fraud scheme that impacted the TRICARE program.
Podiatrist Michael Rotstein (Ocala, 55) has pleaded guilty to one count of healthcare fraud. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and must pay mandatory restitution of approximately $1.5 million. A sentencing date has not yet been set. According to the plea agreement, when billing the Medicare and TRICARE programs Rotstein claimed that nearly half of his procedures were for the removal of skin and muscle, placing him in the top one-percent of billers nationwide for this procedure. In reality, Rotstein did not actually perform these procedures. Rather, the majority of the times that he billed for these procedures, he was actually performing routine foot care, including the clipping of toenails, which is not a reimbursable service under the Medicare or TRICARE program. Since the services performed were not reimbursable, Rotstein devised a scheme to submit claims to Medicare and TRICARE that included using a false diagnosis code and false billing code. As a result of the scheme, Rotstein received $1,504,952.67 in healthcare reimbursements to which he was not entitled.
Jack Gehring (68, Margate) has been charged with trafficking prescription opioids, primarily oxycodone, from late 2010 through 2017. According to the criminal complaint, in addition to acquiring pills himself, Gehring conspired with family members, including his brother, Patrick Gehring (59, Davie), his daughter, Tina Gehring (45, Coral Springs), and several others, including Sean Grelecki (45, Deltona). The conspirators fraudulently acquired and filled prescriptions for thousands of oxycodone pills, and other drugs, in order to illegally distribute them at black market prices of $20 per pill or more. Gehring paid for the health visits and the pharmacy costs for the oxycodone for those who fraudulently acquired pills for him. He also paid the prescription filler $600 to $900 per month, depending on the number of pills acquired. Jack Gehring then distributed thousands of oxycodone pills in Florida, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere.
The Middle District of Florida cases are being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jay Trezevant, Thomas Palermo, Jason Mehta, Jackson Boggs, and DOJ Senior Trial Attorney Christopher Hunter of the Fraud Section.
This operation also highlights the great work being done by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. In the past fiscal year, the Department of Justice, including the Civil Division, has collectively won or negotiated over $2.5 billion in judgments and settlements related to matters alleging health care fraud.
Tampa, Florida – United States Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez announces that 13 individuals have been sentenced in connection with their involvement in an interstate cocaine distribution conspiracy. During the investigation of this case, law enforcement seized more than seven kilograms of cocaine; nine firearms, including an assault rifle and shotgun; hundreds of rounds of ammunition; approximately $40,000 in drug proceeds; and a currency counter.
According to court documents, from November 27, 2017, through April 18, 2018, leaders of the organization oversaw the shipment of more than 20 kilograms of cocaine into Florida from Puerto Rico. After packaging the cocaine for distribution, the conspirators provided the drugs to street level distributors who then sold it in Tampa, Orlando, and elsewhere.
The following individuals have been sentenced in connection with this case:
Name
Age, Residence
Term of Imprisonment
William Leverne Norton
41, Tampa
14 years
Jesus Manuel Rodriguez
31, Brandon
12 years, 7 months
Bryan Gomez Nevarez
31, Avon Park
11 years, 3 months
Luis Enrique Hernandez Quinones
29, Davenport
11 years, 3 months
Avisys Lee Jackson
28, Tampa
10 years, 10 months
Pedro Luis Ramos Burgos
26, Kissimmee
10 years
Javier Albaladejo Lopez
24, Tampa
10 years
Hector Jose Carrasquillo Perez
26, Cataño, Puerto Rico
10 years
Jose Angel Mendoza, Jr.
29, Tampa
8 years, 1 month
Antonio Soul Gonzalez
41, Tampa
7 years, 9 months
Ismael Pagan Marrero
44, Orlando
5 years, 10 months
Edgar Hernandez
28, Tampa
4 years, 3 months
Henry Coira
31, Avon Park
5 years, 10 months
“This investigation represents our commitment to keeping communities safe from destructive drug trafficking enterprises,” said Bryan Vorndran, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Tampa Division. “I commend the federal, state and local law enforcement cooperation in getting the job done and disrupting a major supplier of cocaine in Central Florida.”
“As a result of the collaborative efforts and strong partnership between our local, state, and federal partners, justice has indeed been served by ensuring that these convicted drug traffickers are no longer left on the playing field to inflict harm to the law abiding citizens of the community,” said Adolphus P. Wright, Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Miami Field Division. “We remain committed and will continue to work tirelessly with our law enforcement partners throughout the region to keep our communities safe from illicit drug trafficking and the associated dangers which follow.”
“The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is committed to eradicating illegal drugs and their proceeds from the U.S. Mail,” said U.S. Postal Inspector Damien Kraebel. “Dismantling this conspiracy furthers our mission to help protect employees and customers from the violence related to drug trafficking, and to inhibit the spread of illegal substances into neighborhoods across America.”
“The diligent work done by law enforcement to bring down this illegal operation should be commended,” said FDLE’s Tampa Special Agent in Charge Mark Brutnell. “FDLE is proud to be a part of this effort to take drugs and guns off of our streets, and help make all of us safer.”
“Taking down a sophisticated criminal operation requires teamwork,” said Tampa Police Chief Brian Dugan. “Our streets are safer today due to efforts of our agencies working together. We’re grateful to the U.S. Attorney for the successful prosecution that will put these individuals behind bars for a long time.”
These cases were investigated by a multi-agency task force through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking and money laundering organizations, and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply. Participating agencies in this OCDETF operation included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Tampa Police Department, the Plant City Police Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The cases were prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Carlton C. Gammons.
Tampa, Florida – United States Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez announces the unsealing of two indictments charging 15 individuals with federal drug trafficking violations. In one indictment, Jesus Manuel Rodriguez, a/k/a “Caltu,” (30, Brandon); Bryan Gomez Nevarez (30, Avon Park); Hector Jose Carrasquillo Perez, a/k/a “Tito” (25, Catano, Puerto Rico); Henry Coira (30, Avon Park); Luis Enrique Hernandez Quinones, a/k/a “Gordo” (28, Davenport); Avisys Lee Jackson (27, Tampa); Javier Albaladejo Lopez, a/k/a “the Barber” (23, Tampa); Jose Angel Mendoza, Jr. (28, Tampa); Pedro Luis Ramos Burgos (25, Kissimmee); William Leverne Norton, a/k/a “Cool” (40, Tampa); Edgar Hernandez, a/k/a “Chuck” (27, Tampa); and Ismael Pagan Marrero (42, Orlando) are charged with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. If convicted, each faces a maximum penalty of life in federal prison. In a separate indictment, Roberto Torres Gracia, a/k/a “el Silencio” (40, Pinellas Park); Eddie Alberto Pagan Santiago, a/k/a “Primo” (37, San Juan, Puerto Rico); and David Santiago, a/k/a “Flaco” (33, Tampa) are charged with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute heroin. If convicted, each faces a maximum penalty of 40 years in federal prison.
According to the indictment and information presented in court, between May 2017 and April 2018, the defendants conspired to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin and more than 20 kilograms of cocaine.
An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has violated one or more of the federal criminal laws, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty.
These cases were investigated by a multi-agency task force through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and money laundering organizations, and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply. Agencies involved in this OCDETF operation include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Tampa Police Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. It will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Carlton C. Gammons.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Tampa, Florida – United States Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez announces the unsealing of two indictments charging 15 individuals with federal drug trafficking violations. In one indictment, Jesus Manuel Rodriguez, a/k/a “Caltu,” (30, Brandon); Bryan Gomez Nevarez (30, Avon Park); Hector Jose Carrasquillo Perez, a/k/a “Tito” (25, Catano, Puerto Rico); Henry Coira (30, Avon Park); Luis Enrique Hernandez Quinones, a/k/a “Gordo” (28, Davenport); Avisys Lee Jackson (27, Tampa); Javier Albaladejo Lopez, a/k/a “the Barber” (23, Tampa); Jose Angel Mendoza, Jr. (28, Tampa); Pedro Luis Ramos Burgos (25, Kissimmee); William Leverne Norton, a/k/a “Cool” (40, Tampa); Edgar Hernandez, a/k/a “Chuck” (27, Tampa); and Ismael Pagan Marrero (42, Orlando) are charged with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. If convicted, each faces a maximum penalty of life in federal prison. In a separate indictment, Roberto Torres Gracia, a/k/a “el Silencio” (40, Pinellas Park); Eddie Alberto Pagan Santiago, a/k/a “Primo” (37, San Juan, Puerto Rico); and David Santiago, a/k/a “Flaco” (33, Tampa) are charged with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute heroin. If convicted, each faces a maximum penalty of 40 years in federal prison.
According to the indictment and information presented in court, between May 2017 and April 2018, the defendants conspired to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin and more than 20 kilograms of cocaine.
An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has violated one or more of the federal criminal laws, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty.
These cases were investigated by a multi-agency task force through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF). The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and money laundering organizations, and those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply. Agencies involved in this OCDETF operation include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Tampa Police Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. It will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Carlton C. Gammons.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Tacoma – A Pierce County, Washington man was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Tacoma to four years in prison for unlawful possession of a machinegun and unlawful possession of firearms related to his October 2023 arrest at a Fife, Washington auto glass business, announced U.S. Attorney Tessa M. Gorman. Brady Lee Eltz, 39, has been in custody since his federal arrest on October 31, 2023. At the sentencing hearing Chief U.S. District Judge David G. Estudillo said, “This conduct is not only serious but alarming to read about and see. You possessed very dangerous weapons. It’s unclear what your motivation was.”
According to records filed in the case, on October 4, 2023, Fife Police were dispatched to an auto-glass repair shop where workers at the shop reported seeing firearms in the trunk of a vehicle Eltz brought in for repair. Workers also reported seeing bullet holes in the vehicle.
After law enforcement took Eltz into custody, they checked the bathroom at the business because Eltz had gone into the bathroom when he saw police arrive. In the cabinet below the sink police found two firearms – 9 mm handguns. One, a Glock, had an illegal switch known as an “auto-sear” installed. The switch allows the gun to be fired automatically, making it a machinegun. The Glock had been reported stolen. Both the Glock and the other handgun had rounds chambered.
Fife Police towed Eltz’s vehicle and applied for a warrant to search it. During the search of the vehicle’s trunk, they found three additional firearms – including a stolen rifle that had been modified to fire automatically, making it a machinegun. Police then discovered a bag with two improvised explosive devices. Pierce County Sheriff’s Office bomb technicians were called in to evaluate the devices and make them safe. One was an explosive simulator likely stolen from the U.S. Army. It can cause serious bodily injury if exploded in a confined space. The second explosive was a thick cardboard tube filled with a black flammable powder.
After the explosives were made safe, police continued their search of the trunk and found two additional rifles, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, latex face masks, body armor, gun sights, holsters, and other firearms accessories. Eltz also had GPS trackers, several knives, and a voice-changing device.
As prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memo, Eltz has a history of collecting similar armaments, false credentials, and disguises. “In 2007, he had a gun magazine loaded with 30 rounds of hollow point ammunition, a homemade silencer, ballistic helmet, handcuffs, emergency vehicle red light, sword, electronic stun gun, nun-chucks, knives, and a City of Milton “Director of Public Safety” badge. In 2012, Eltz had a stolen rifle with a silencer, three pistols, two other rifles, a US Army backpack with Army gear, a Department of Defense identification card (in another name), multiple rifle and pistol magazines (loaded), a law enforcement duty belt, a WSP “SWAT Sergeant” shirt, night vision goggles, large military-style knives, and more. At the time, he was driving an older style police vehicle that still had emergency lights.”
All the guns, ammunition and auto-sear devices in this case are being forfeited to the government.
Eltz is prohibited from possessing any firearms because of criminal convictions including a 2013 conviction in the Western District of Washington for unlawful possession of firearms. Eltz was sentenced to five years in prison for that crime.
The case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (ATF) with assistance from the Fife Police Department and the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office. The Washington State Patrol assisted with locating and arresting Eltz on a federal warrant after he posted bail and left state custody.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Marci L. Ellsworth.
Case Name: United States v. Information associated with the account identified as chuckeven8gmail.com that is stored at premises controlled by Google, Inc.
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
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
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, M.D., announced today the largest ever health care fraud enforcement action by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, involving 412 charged defendants across 41 federal districts, including 115 doctors, nurses and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in health care fraud schemes involving approximately $1.3 billion in false billings. Of those charged, over 120 defendants, including doctors, were charged for their roles in prescribing and distributing opioids and other dangerous narcotics. Thirty state Medicaid Fraud Control Units also participated in today’s arrests. In addition, HHS has initiated suspension actions against 295 providers, including doctors, nurses and pharmacists.
Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Price were joined in the announcement by Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Acting Director Andrew McCabe of the FBI, Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Inspector General Daniel Levinson of the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), Chief Don Fort of IRS Criminal Investigation, Administrator Seema Verma of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Deputy Director Kelly P. Mayo of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS).
Today’s enforcement actions were led and coordinated by the Criminal Division, Fraud Section’s Health Care Fraud Unit in conjunction with its Medicare Fraud Strike Force (MFSF) partners, a partnership between the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the FBI and HHS-OIG. In addition, the operation includes the participation of the DEA, DCIS, and State Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
The charges announced today aggressively target schemes billing Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE (a health insurance program for members and veterans of the armed forces and their families) for medically unnecessary prescription drugs and compounded medications that often were never even purchased and/or distributed to beneficiaries. The charges also involve individuals contributing to the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on medical professionals involved in the unlawful distribution of opioids and other prescription narcotics, a particular focus for the Department. According to the CDC, approximately 91 Americans die every day of an opioid related overdose.
“Too many trusted medical professionals like doctors, nurses, and pharmacists have chosen to violate their oaths and put greed ahead of their patients,” said Attorney General Sessions. “Amazingly, some have made their practices into multimillion dollar criminal enterprises. They seem oblivious to the disastrous consequences of their greed. Their actions not only enrich themselves often at the expense of taxpayers but also feed addictions and cause addictions to start. The consequences are real: emergency rooms, jail cells, futures lost, and graveyards. While today is a historic day, the Department's work is not finished. In fact, it is just beginning. We will continue to find, arrest, prosecute, convict, and incarcerate fraudsters and drug dealers wherever they are.”
“Today’s announcement demonstrates the Department of Justice’s commitment to focus investigative resources on individuals who choose to pursue profit over public health. Ultimately, health care fraud deprives the elderly and disabled from benefits they are entitled to receive,” said US Attorney Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez. “We will continue to aggressively pursue and prosecute those who commit fraud against our nation’s federal healthcare programs.”
“Healthcare fraud is not only a criminal act that costs billions of taxpayer dollars - it is an affront to all Americans who rely on our national healthcare programs for access to critical healthcare services and a violation of trust,” said Secretary Price. “The United States is home to the world’s best medical professionals, but their ability to provide affordable, high-quality care to their patients is jeopardized every time a criminal commits healthcare fraud. That is why this Administration is committed to bringing these criminals to justice, as President Trump demonstrated in his 2017 budget request calling for a new $70 million investment in the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program. The historic results of this year’s national takedown represent significant progress toward protecting the integrity and sustainability of Medicare and Medicaid, which we will continue to build upon in the years to come.”
According to court documents, the defendants allegedly participated in schemes to submit claims to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for treatments that were medically unnecessary and often never provided. In many cases, patient recruiters, beneficiaries and other co-conspirators were allegedly paid cash kickbacks in return for supplying beneficiary information to providers, so that the providers could then submit fraudulent bills to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary or never performed. The number of medical professionals charged is particularly significant, because virtually every health care fraud scheme requires a corrupt medical professional to be involved in order for Medicare or Medicaid to pay the fraudulent claims. Aggressively pursuing corrupt medical professionals not only has a deterrent effect on other medical professionals, but also ensures that their licenses can no longer be used to bilk the system.
As part of this national effort, the District of Puerto Rico charged 13 individuals in six separate indictments, including three physicians and two pharmacists, in four schemes involving drug diversion, Medicaid fraud, and the theft of funds from a health care program. Defendants Miguel Hernández-Marquez, owner of Farmacia Condado Moderno in Caguas; Guillermo Tirado-Menéndez, a physician specialized in internal medicine with offices located in Caguas and Cidra; Gilberto Figueroa-Trinidad, aka “Chino;” Rebecca Sierra-López, aka “Rebe,” a nurse; William Vélez-Montes, a pharmacist; and Myrna Nevares-Sobrino, a pharmacist, are charged for their participation in a conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and dispense - outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose - a controlled substance, that is, at least 70,000 units of Oxycodone (commonly known as Percocet), and at least 40,000 units of Alprazolam (commonly known as Xanax).
In a separate indictment, defendants Hernández-Marquez, Figueroa-Trinidad, Vélez-Montes and Nevares-Sobrino; along with Luis Vélez-Quiñones, a physician specialized in internal medicine with office located in Guánica; and Laura López-Rolón are charged with conspiracy to manufacture, distribute and dispense - outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose - a controlled substance, that is, at least 77,000 units of Oxycodone, at least 47,000 units of Alprazolam, and at least 40,000 units of Tramadol.
In a third indictment, Ivette Caraballo-Pérez, aka “Tita” and Steven Velázquez-Pérez are charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute Oxycodone. The fourth indictment charges José Vega-Emmanuelli, a DEA registrant with the authorization to dispense controlled substances, with possession with intent to dispense, outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, Oxycodone and Alprazolam.
Defendant Luz De Alba Quezada-De Jesús, a Postal Service employee, is charged with health care fraud and false statements relating to health care matters. Quezada-De Jesús certified that she was unemployed in order to receive Medicaid benefits, also known as Mi Salud, through First Medical Health Plan Inc. In a separate indictment, Yalixa Flores-Fuentes, employed by MMM Healthcare, LLC is charged with bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and embezzlement in connection with health care. Flores-Fuentes submitted false invoices for catering services and, using her status as an employee of MMM, caused checks to be drawn which she later cashed for herself.
The cases are being handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Teresa Zapata-Valladares, and Susan Z. Jorgensen, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda C. Soto-Ortega.
“The arrests conducted in Puerto Rico last Monday as part of the nationwide “Diversion and Health Care Takedown” shed some light to the communities in the island that DEA, other federal and state agencies will target any kind of illicit drug trafficking activity threatening our communities,” stated DEA Special Agent in Charge Matthew G. Donahue. “The opioid addiction issue in the United States has become a national crisis, for this reason we are working hard and proactively to keep our neighborhoods and communities safe and to protect the lives of our citizens. This enforcement operation sends a message to the medical professionals that once they dishonor their Hippocratic Oath, DEA will investigate them and bring any physician or pharmacist to justice that violates federal narcotics laws and regulations. Law enforcement agencies/departments in Puerto Rico are part of our communities support networks and our goals and mandates are to prevent the individuals responsible who are dealing and trafficking in these opioid substances from killing our families and friends selling one baggy, one deck, capsule, and one pill. DEA will stay here, and we will prevail.”
“This indictment is another reminder that the misappropriation of federal funds is illegal and unacceptable,” said Scott J. Lampert, Special Agent in Charge, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS-OIG, along with our law enforcement partners, will not tolerate this behavior and will remain vigilant in our efforts to protect the integrity of our federal health care programs.”
Eileen Neff, Special Agent-in-Charge, U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General stated: “The U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General investigates those who would defraud the Postal Service as well as Postal Service employees alleged to commit fraud against other government programs. We will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners in investigations such as this and we thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office and HHS-OIG for their assistance with our investigations.”
The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations are part of a joint initiative between the Department of Justice and HHS to focus their efforts to prevent and deter fraud and enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. The Medicare Fraud Strike Force operates in nine locations nationwide. Since its inception in March 2007, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged over 3500 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for over $12.5 billion.
This operation also highlights the great work being done by the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. In the past fiscal year, the Department of Justice, including the Civil Division, has collectively won or negotiated over $2.5 billion in judgements and settlements related to matters alleging health care fraud.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today the convictions of GARY TANNER, a former executive at Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (“Valeant”), and ANDREW DAVENPORT, the former chief executive officer (“CEO”) of Philidor Rx Services LLC (“Philidor”), for engaging in a multimillion-dollar kickback scheme. TANNER and DAVENPORT were convicted on all counts of the Indictment today after a four-week trial before Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As a unanimous jury has found, Gary Tanner sold his loyalty to Andrew Davenport in exchange for $9.7 million. Tanner was entrusted by his employer to manage Valeant’s relationship with Davenport’s company. Davenport exploited that trust by promising a massive kickback in exchange for betrayal. Unbeknownst to his employer, Tanner became the fox guarding the henhouse. Our commitment to this prosecution shows that corruption of publicly traded companies will be rooted out and met with justice.”
According to the allegations in the charging documents and statements made in court proceedings:
Valeant is a publicly traded pharmaceutical manufacturer headquartered in Canada, with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Philidor was a specialty mail order pharmacy that was formed in or about January 2013 with the assistance of Valeant. During the course of Philidor’s existence, at least 90 percent of the drugs dispensed by Philidor were Valeant-branded drugs.
TANNER was the Valeant executive primarily responsible for managing Valeant’s relationship with Philidor. TANNER was also responsible more broadly for Valeant’s alternative fulfillment (“AF”) program. Through its AF program, Valeant sought to increase doctor prescriptions and patient purchases of Valeant pharmaceuticals instead of generic substitutes or alternatives by helping obtain insurance coverage for those drugs or providing other incentives for prescription and purchase of Valeant drugs. As part of his work at Valeant, TANNER interacted directly with Philidor’s executives, including DAVENPORT, and senior Valeant executives.
Valeant and Philidor began negotiations for Valeant to purchase Philidor, and Valeant ultimately purchased an option to buy Philidor (the “Option”) in exchange for $133 million in payments to Philidor’s owners, and the promise of $100 million in additional milestone payments if Philidor were to meet certain sales targets. Despite the duty of loyalty owed by TANNER to Valeant, during negotiations relating to the Option, TANNER and DAVENPORT secretly made preparations for TANNER to receive a multimillion-dollar kickback out of the money that Valeant was going to pay Philidor’s owners for the Option. Among other things, TANNER and DAVENPORT set up shell company bank accounts in order to launder the kickbacks to TANNER. While these preparations were underway, TANNER secretly advised DAVENPORT on his negotiations with Valeant. TANNER did this in contravention of his duties to Valeant and despite the fact that he was also internally advising Valeant in its negotiations with DAVENPORT about the Option.
In addition to secretly helping DAVENPORT negotiate against Valeant in exchange for the promise of a kickback from DAVENPORT, TANNER took other actions to benefit Philidor and DAVENPORT personally, and against the direction of his supervisors at Valeant. For example, TANNER’s supervisors directed him to identify other pharmacies that Valeant could use to distribute its drugs, in order to minimize the risks of overreliance on Philidor. TANNER deceived his supervisors into believing that he was pursuing their direction in good faith when, in fact, he lied about participating in meetings and doing due diligence on potential competitors to Philidor. In addition, TANNER helped Philidor and DAVENPORT secure favorable payment terms.
In order to keep their scheme hidden from Valeant, TANNER often used a Philidor email account that TANNER maintained in the name of “Brian Wilson” to communicate with DAVENPORT. TANNER also pretended to be Brian Wilson in at least one meeting that he and DAVENPORT participated in on behalf of Philidor.
In December 2014, Valeant acquired the Option. DAVENPORT, through two different entities that he controlled, received approximately $50 million of the $133 million received from Valeant. DAVENPORT transferred $9.7 million of that amount to TANNER through a shell company he controlled, and then to a shell company controlled by TANNER, an entity called Befrielse Consolidated, LLC (“Befrielse”). TANNER concealed his receipt of this money from Valeant, in violation of his fiduciary duties to Valeant, and in violation of Valeant’s conflict of interest policies. Prior to receiving the funds, TANNER had repeatedly certified to Valeant that he was in full compliance with Valeant’s Standards of Business Conduct, which prohibited any conflicts of interest without full disclosure and approval by company management.
After the Option purchase was completed, TANNER continued to use his position at Valeant to advance the interests of Philidor and DAVENPORT, including by resisting Valeant’s efforts to collect payments from Philidor owed to Valeant and pursuing milestone payments under the terms of the Option in which he secretly expected to share. In communications concerning the scheme, using TANNER’s secret Brian Wilson email account, DAVENPORT discussed with TANNER how TANNER would secretly continue to promote DAVENPORT’s interests, even while he purported to represent Valeant’s interests as the Valeant executive responsible for Philidor. Among other things, DAVENPORT stated that he pictured his and TANNER’s “butch and sundance ride into the sunset (or off the cliff as in the flick),” to which TANNER responded, using the secret Brian Wilson account: “[G]ave me a good chuckle when I just saw it. Will have to keep playing the game :).”
* * *
TANNER, 40, of Gilbert, Arizona, and DAVENPORT, 50, of Haverford, Pennsylvania, were convicted of four counts: (1) one count of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison; (2) one count of honest services wire fraud, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison; (3) one count of conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, which carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison; and (4) one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison.
Mr. Berman praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and thanked the Securities and Exchange Commission for its cooperation and assistance.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force and its Complex Frauds and Cyber Crime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert W. Allen, Richard Cooper, and Amanda Kramer are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Dermot F. Shea, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), John B. Devito, Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), and Geraldine Hart, the Commissioner of the Suffolk County Police Department (“SCPD”), announced the unsealing of an Indictment charging 17 defendants with committing various racketeering, narcotics, and firearms offenses in Manhattan and the Bronx. Ten of the defendants were arrested today and presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses in Manhattan federal court. Three of the defendants are already in state custody and will be presented at a later date. Four defendants remain at large. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged in the indictment, the defendants in this case include high-ranking members of a violent set of the Latin Kings gang. They are alleged to have engaged in acts of violence, robberies, narcotics trafficking, and the use of firearms. Thanks to the efforts of our partners at the FBI, NYPD, ATF, and SCPD, the defendants now face federal charges for these very serious crimes.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “Rounding up these alleged gang members is more than just removing violent criminals from the streets they believe they control. They’re pushing and selling drugs that are killing thousands of people each year in our country, adding to the epidemic tearing apart families and communities. Our work today, and the work we will continue to do tomorrow on our FBI Metro Safe Streets Gang Task Force, is vital to combating the spread of these drugs, and crucial to saving people’s lives.”
ATF Special Agent in Charge John B. Devito said: “The defendants are alleged to have conspired on, threatened and committed numerous acts of violence to influence and control their members and enforce the territorial boundaries of their illegal narcotics operations. Thankfully through the diligent efforts of our law enforcement partners this operation has been disrupted and dismantled. We will stand with all of our local, state and federal partners to see that these violent gangs are eradicated from our communities. I would like to thank the United States Attorney’s Office for prosecuting this case.”
SCPD Commissioner Geraldine Hart said: “More than a dozen alleged violent gang members are now off the streets thanks to the collaborative efforts with our law enforcement partners. As alleged, these criminals have zero consideration for the well-being of anyone, inside or outside their gang, distributing narcotics and possessing firearms in an attempt to instill fear in our communities. We will continue to work together with our partner agencies to rid our communities of violent street gangs.”
NYPD Commissioner Dermot F. Shea said: "Targeting and dismantling gangs and crews, and preventing the violence so often associated with their illegal activities, continues to be among the highest priorities for the NYPD. We continue to relentlessly with our law enforcement partners to identify, arrest, and build the strongest possible cases to hold to account anyone who involves themselves in such behavior."
As alleged in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court and statements made in court[1]:
CARMELO VELEZ, a/k/a “Jugg,” CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a “Taz,” LUIS SEPULVEDA, a/k/a “Red,” ANGEL LOPEZ, a/k/a “SB,” CHRISTOPHER LUM, a/k/a “Un,” EMMANUEL BONAFE, a/k/a “Eazy,” CHRISTOPHER NELSON, a/k/a “Hype,” JOSIAH VELAZQUEZ, a/k/a “Siah,” ALBERTO BORGES, a/k/a “AB,” JUAN HERNANDEZ, a/k/a “Goldo,” HEINNER SOLIS, a/k/a “Juelz,” EZEQUIEL OSPINA, a/k/a “Izzy,” RAIMUNDO NIEVES, a/k/a “Dobule-R,” DEESHUNTEE STEVENS, a/k/a “Kay,” HECTOR BONAPARTE, a/k/a “June,” and MICHAEL GONZALEZ, a/k/a “Wisdom,” are members and associates of a racketeering enterprise known as the “Black Mob,” which operates in the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, and Long Island. The Black Mob is a set, or “tribe,” of the nationwide Latin Kings gang. In order to enrich the enterprise, protect and expand its criminal operations, enforce discipline among its members, and retaliate against members of rival gangs, members and associates of the Black Mob committed, conspired, attempted, and threatened to commit acts of violence; distributed and possessed with intent to distribute narcotics, including heroin, fentanyl, and crack; committed robberies; and obtained, possessed, and used firearms.
VELEZ, 30, RODRIGUEZ, 34, SEPULVEDA, 27, LOPEZ, 34, LUM, 28, BONAFE, 27, NELSON, 28. VELAZQUEZ, 22, BORGES, 29, JUAN HERNANDEZ, 31, JESUS HERNANDEZ, 26, SOLIS, 25, and OSPINA, 23, are each charged with one count of racketeering conspiracy, which carries a statutory maximum sentence of life in prison.
Those 13 defendants, as well as NIEVES, 46, STEVENS, 46, BONAPARTE, 37, and GONZALEZ, 33, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute: (i) one kilogram and more of mixtures and substances containing a detectable amount of heroin, (ii) 400 grams and more of mixtures and substances containing a detectable amount of fentanyl, (iii) 280 grams and more of mixtures and substances containing a detectable amount of crack cocaine, (iv) five kilograms and more of mixtures and substances containing a detectable amount of cocaine, (v) oxycodone, (vi) alprazolam, and (vii) marijuana, which carries a statutory maximum sentence of life in prison, and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.
All of the defendants except GONZALEZ are also each charged with possessing, carrying, and using firearms in relation to, and in furtherance of, the narcotics conspiracy, which carries a statutory maximum sentence of life in prison, and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison.
* * *
The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI, NYPD, ATF, and SCPD. Mr. Berman also thanked the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision for its assistance in the case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Adam Hobson and Elinor Tarlow are in charge of the prosecutions.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment constitutes only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and Richard Conway, Chief of the Port Chester Police Department, announced today the unsealing of an Indictment charging CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ, JOHNNY FERNANDEZ, JESUS GONZALEZ, JUAN HERNANDEZ, JUAN PABLO RENDON-INZUNZA, NICOLE MAISONET, GABRIEL ORTIZ, a/k/a “Bebe,” MARIA ROLON, EDGARDO RUIZ, a/k/a “Roro,” HECTOR SANCHEZ, a/k/a “Tito,” GILBERT TORRES, FABIOLA VEGA, and JOHN VIEIRA, a/k/a “John-John,” with firearms and narcotics offenses. The defendants have been charged as a result of their membership and participation in a transnational criminal organization that trafficked in firearms and narcotics, including heroin and methamphetamine. Nine defendants were arrested or taken into federal custody on these charges today in various locations throughout the United States, namely Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. ORTIZ, who is in custody on state charges in Rochester, New York, will be transferred to federal custody as soon as possible. ROLON, GONZALEZ, and INZUNZA have not been arrested to date.
Six of the defendants – CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ, JOHNNY FERNANDEZ, JUAN HERNANDEZ, GILBERT TORRES, FABIOLA VEGA, and JOHN VIEIRA – were arraigned before United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith this afternoon in White Plains federal court. Three other defendants –EDGARDO RUIZ, NICOLE MAISONET, and HECTOR SANCHEZ – will be presented today in federal courts in Maryland and Massachusetts.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, these defendants operated a nationwide drug distribution network to push heroin and methamphetamine onto U.S. streets. Thanks to the dedicated work of the FBI and Port Chester Police, these defendants are behind bars and face significant prison time for their alleged crimes.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “The members of this criminal organization created a spider web of illegal drug sales, moving their drugs from south of the border and crisscrossing the states allegedly attempting covering their tracks. These are the types of operations contributing to the deadly epidemic of overdoses in our country, indiscriminately killing people of all ages and races. The FBI Westchester County Safe Streets Task Force and our law enforcement partners have created such a vital working relationship that we are having a significant impact in stopping the flow of illegal drugs at the source.”
Port Chester Police Chief Richard Conway said: “I'm very proud our Department’s role in this investigation, which is perhaps the largest scale operation we have ever undertaken. Today’s arrests represent an example to us all of what can be accomplished when agencies work together.”
According to the Indictment[1] unsealed today in White Plains federal court:
From 2017 to 2018, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ, JOHNNY FERNANDEZ, JESUS GONZALEZ, JUAN HERNANDEZ, JUAN PABLO RENDON-INZUNZA, NICOLE MAISONET, GABRIEL ORTIZ, MARIA ROLON, EDGARDO RUIZ, HECTOR SANCHEZ, GILBERT TORRES, FABIOLA VEGA, and JOHN VIEIRA participated in a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. The criminal organization trafficked in both heroin and methamphetamine. As part of the criminal organization, CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ and FABIOLA VEGA possessed firearms in furtherance of their narcotics trafficking and, together with co-defendants HERNANDEZ, RUIZ, and TORRES, participated in a conspiracy to deal in firearms without a license between 2017 and 2018.
* * *
The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided in the attached table for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants will be determined by a judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the FBI and the Port Chester Police Department. Mr. Berman also thanked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Westchester County Police Department, and the Peekskill Police Department for their assistance in this investigation.
The prosecution is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division. Assistant United States Attorneys Olga Zverovich and Sam Adelsberg are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
United States v. Cristian Fernandez, et al.
CHARGE
DEFENDANTS
MAXIMUM PENALTIES
Count One
Narcotics Conspiracy
CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ
JOHNNY FERNANDEZ
JESUS GONZALEZ
JUAN HERNANDEZ,
JUAN PABLO RENDON-INZUNZA
NICOLE MAISONET
GABRIEL ORTIZ, a/k/a “Bebe”
MARIA ROLON
EDGARDO RUIZ, a/k/a “Roro”
HECTOR SANCHEZ, a/k/a “Tito”
GILBERT TORRES
FABIOLA VEGA
JOHN VIEIRA a/k/a “John-John”
As to defendants CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ, GONZALEZ, INZUNZA, ORTIZ, RUIZ, SANCHEZ, VEGA:
Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
As to defendants JOHNNY FERNANDEZ, HERNANDEZ, MAISONET, ROLON, TORRES, and VIEIRA:
40 years in prison with a mandatory minimum of five years in prison
Count Two
Conspiracy to Deal in Firearms without a License
CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ
JUAN HERNANDEZ
EDGARDO RUIZ, a/k/a “Roro” GILBERT TORRES
FABIOLA VEGA
Five years in prison
Count Three
Firearms Offense
FABIOLA VEGA
Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of five years in prison
Count Four
Firearms Offense
CRISTIAN FERNANDEZ
Life in prison with a mandatory minimum of five years in prison
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment, and the description of the Indictment set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Darcel D. Clark, the Bronx County District Attorney, James O’Neill, the Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), Angel M. Melendez, Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), and James J. Hunt, Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), today announced the unsealing of two Indictments charging 49 members of two Bronx-based drug distribution organizations, with various narcotics, robbery, and firearms offenses, including the murder of Jose Morales on December 11, 2016.
Fifteen defendants associated with a drug distribution organization operating primarily on East 175th Street and Monroe Avenue in the Bronx are charged in United States v. James Felton, et al., which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley. The defendants taken into federal custody today were presented before Magistrate Judges Barbara C. Moses and Henry B. Pitman. Three defendants, JAMES FELTON, JAMES DIAZ, and ANDRE FELTON, are currently incarcerated in federal custody on related charges and will be arraigned on the Indictment before Judge Pauley on March 23, 2017.
Thirty-four defendants associated with a drug distribution organization operating primarily on Weeks Avenue and East 176th Street in the Bronx are charged in United States v. Edwin Romero, et al., which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska. The defendants taken into federal custody today were presented before Magistrate Judges Barbara C. Moses and Henry B. Pitman.
Manhattan Acting U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said: “Dozens of alleged members of two drug distribution organizations have been charged with peddling potentially lethal drugs. Many are also charged with committing violent crimes, including four who allegedly murdered Jose Morales in furtherance of their drug business. All New Yorkers are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes, free from the devastating effects of drugs and the violence that can accompany drug trafficking. Together with our law enforcement partners, we will continue to work to return the neighborhoods of the Bronx to the law-abiding people who live in them.”
Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark said: “This case crystallizes how drug dealing’s attendant violence devastates our neighborhoods. These two organizations held the Mount Hope area in a vise grip of numerous street shootings, including at least one murder. In our fight against heroin and other drugs, we must always remain focused on the community residents who are victimized by these vicious traffickers.”
Police Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “Today’s arrests are the latest example of drug dealing that led to violence, including armed robberies and a murder in the Bronx, as alleged. This type of precision policing is leading to further reductions in crime beyond last year’s all-time low. Many thanks to the detectives, agents, and the prosecutors in the Southern District we so often work with and whose diligence resulted in the leveling of these serious drug trafficking charges today.”
HSI Special Agent-in-Charge Angel M. Melendez said: “Today the law enforcement community in New York struck a serious blow to violent drug distribution organizations that operate in our city. Two such organizations allegedly flooded the community of Mount Hope in the Bronx with heroin, crack cocaine, fear and death. This is yet another step in our efforts to bring peace and hope to our communities by removing the alleged leadership and rank-and-file members of these organizations, putting an end to their menacing criminal conduct.”
DEA Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Division James J. Hunt said: “Guns, violence and turf wars plague neighborhoods that drug dealers have turned into battlefields. Today, law enforcement has reclaimed the Mount Hope section of the Bronx by arresting dozens of alleged members of two drug trafficking organizations. DEA Agents working with HSI, NYPD, the Bronx District Attorney’s Office and the SDNY U.S. Attorney’s Office identified and dismantled these crews allegedly responsible for fueling drug addiction and drug-related violence.”
The Indictments[1] arise from a joint investigation by HSI, the DEA, and the NYPD into two violent drug trafficking organizations that operated in the 46th Precinct in the Bronx. Members of these drug trafficking organizations sold crack cocaine, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, and they possessed and used firearms to further their drug trafficking activities.
Count One of the Indictment in U.S. v. James Felton, et al., unsealed today in Manhattan federal court, charges JAMES FELTON, JAMES DIAZ, ANDRE FELTON, EZEKIEL BURLEY, URIAH BROWN, BRADFORD CANNON, WILLIE REEVES, HAROLD FIELDS, ROBERT BRENT, DASHAUN MCDONALD, MATTHEW TORRES, TYRONE TURNER, KENDRICK MCCRAY, GINGER DIAZ, and JOSE SANDOVAL with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.
Counts Two charges JAMES FELTON, DIAZ, ANDRE FELTON, and BURLEY with the murder of Jose Morales, which occurred on December 11, 2016, in the vicinity of East 175th Street and Weeks Avenue, in the course of a narcotics conspiracy.
Count Three charges JAMES FELTON, DIAZ, ANDRE FELTON, and BURLEY with using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a narcotics conspiracy, resulting in the death of Jose Morales on December 11, 2016.
Count Four charges JAMES FELTON, DIAZ, and BURLEY with using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a narcotics conspiracy, on dates other than December 11, 2016.
Count Five charges BROWN, CANNON, REEVES, FIELDS, BRENT, MCDONALD, TORRES, TURNER, MCCRAY, DIAZ, and SANDOVAL with using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging firearms during and in relation to a narcotics conspiracy.
Count One of the Indictment in U.S. v. Edwin Romero, et al., unsealed today in Manhattan federal court, charges EDWIN ROMERO, RAFAEL ROMERO, FRANCIS PALUZZI, LUIS GONZALEZ, ANIBAL GONZALEZ, CARLOS MOTA, ELIMANUEL DIAZ, PEDRO OLIVO, ADRIAN SANCHEZ, DARYL SIMON, JEFFREY FERNANDEZ, JUAN VALDEZ, WILLIE TUCKER, KASAN NOBLE, DAMIAN SAUNDERS, DANIEL JEFFERSON, DERECK JEFFERSON, WAYNE SCOTT, ERIC RIVERA, MICHAEL MARTINEZ, MAXAMILLION MERCADO, KAREEM SIMMONDS, ALEXANDER PENA, ANTHONY CLASE, CARLOS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, GABRIEL GONZALEZ, JESUS MATA, NANA OWUSU, ROBERTO RAMIREZ, WILPHER RODRIGUEZ, YAWILIS RODRIGUEZ, JESUS ABAD, and ANGEL GUANCE with conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.
Count Two charges EDWIN ROMERO, SANCHEZ, VALDEZ, TUCKER, and YAWILIS RODRIGUEZ with conspiring to commit robbery.
Count Three charges EDWIN ROMERO, RAFAEL ROMERO, FRANCIS PALUZZI, LUIS GONZALEZ, ANIBAL GONZALEZ, CARLOS MOTA, ELIMANUEL DIAZ, PEDRO OLIVO, ADRIAN SANCHEZ, DARYL SIMON, JEFFREY FERNANDEZ, JUAN VALDEZ, WILLIE TUCKER, KASAN NOBLE, DAMIAN SAUNDERS, DANIEL JEFFERSON, DERECK JEFFERSON, WAYNE SCOTT, ERIC RIVERA, MICHAEL MARTINEZ, KAREEM SIMMONDS, ALEXANDER PENA, ANTHONY CLASE, CARLOS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, GABRIEL GONZALEZ, JESUS MATA, NANA OWUSU, ROBERTO RAMIREZ, WILPHER RODRIGUEZ, YAWILIS RODRIGUEZ, JESUS ABAD, and ANGEL GUANCE with using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a narcotics conspiracy.
Count Four charges EDWIN ROMERO with using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.
* * *
Charts containing the names, ages, residences, charges, and maximum penalties for the defendants are set forth below. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the respective judges.
Mr. Kim praised the outstanding investigative work of the NYPD, HSI, and DEA, and expressed gratitude for the coordinated efforts of the NYPD’s Detective Bureau, including the Bronx Violent Crime Squad, the 46th Precinct Detectives Squad, and the Bronx Homicide Task Force. Mr. Kim also expressed gratitude to the Bronx District Attorney’s Office for its partnership in this investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Frank Balsamello, Matthew Laroche, Anden Chow, and Michael Krouse, and Special Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Hellman (cross-designated from the Bronx District Attorney’s Office) are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictments are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
United States v. James Felton, et al., S2 17 Cr. 21 (WHP)
COUNT
CHARGE
DEFENDANTS
MAX. PENALTIES
1
Narcotics conspiracy
21 U.S.C. § 846
JAMES FELTON
JAMES DIAZ
ANDRE FELTON
EZEKIEL BURLEY
URIAH BROWN
BRADFORD CANNON
WILLIE REEVES
HAROLD FIELDS
ROBERT BRENT
DASHAUN MCDONALD
MATTHEW TORRES
TYRONE TURNER
KENDRICK MCCRAY
GINGER DIAZ
JOSE SANDOVAL
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
2
Murder while engaged in a narcotics conspiracy
21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 2
JAMES FELTON
JAMES DIAZ
ANDRE FELTON
EZEKIEL BURLEY
Life in prison or death
Mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison
3
Using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging firearms, causing death
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(j)(1) and 2
JAMES FELTON
JAMES DIAZ
ANDRE FELTON
EZEKIEL BURLEY
Life in prison or death
4
Using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging firearms
18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), (iii), 924(c)(1)(C)(i), and 2
JAMES FELTON
JAMES DIAZ
EZEKIEL BURLEY
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison for DIAZ and BURLEY
Mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison for JAMES FELTON
5
Using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging firearms
18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii), 2
URIAH BROWN
BRADFORD CANNON
WILLIE REEVES
HAROLD FIELDS
ROBERT BRENT
DASHAUN MCDONALD
MATTHEW TORRES
TYRONE TURNER
KENDRICK MCCRAY
GINGER DIAZ
JOSE SANDOVAL
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
DEFENDANT
AGE
RESIDENCE
JAMES FELTON
47
Bronx, New York
JAMES DIAZ,
a/k/a “Chunky”
24
Bronx, New York
ANDRE FELTON,
a/k/a “Dre”
39
Mount Vernon, New York
EZEKIEL BURLEY,
a/k/a “Ezekiel McCall”
a/k/a “Zeke”
a/k/a “Ziggy”
23
Bronx, New York
URIAH BROWN,
a/k/a “Scooter”
42
Bronx, New York
BRADFORD CANNON,
a/k/a “Brad”
46
Bronx, New York
WILLIE REEVES,
a/k/a “Willie Reed”
a/k/a “Willow”
30
Bronx, New York
HAROLD FIELDS,
a/k/a “Howie”
a/k/a “HD”
38
Bronx, New York
ROBERT BRENT,
a/k/a “Ready”
45
Brooklyn, New York
DASHAUN MCDONALD,
a/k/a “Dayday”
27
Bronx, New York
MATTHEW TORRES,
a/k/a “Mac Mittens”
a/k/a “Green Eyes”
33
Bronx, New York
TYRONE TURNER,
a/k/a “Skrap”
32
Bronx, New York
KENDRICK MCCRAY,
a/k/a “Kenny”
43
Bronx, New York
GINGER DIAZ,
a/k/a “George”
30
Bronx, New York
JOSE SANDOVAL,
a/k/a “Shorty”
41
Bronx, New York
United States v. Edwin Romero, et al., S1 17 Cr. 123 (LAP)
COUNT
CHARGE
DEFENDANTS
MAX. PENALTIES
1
Narcotics conspiracy
21 U.S.C. § 846
EDWIN ROMERO
RAFAEL ROMERO
FRANCIS PALUZZI
LUIS GONZALEZ
ANIBAL GONZALEZ
CARLOS MOTA
ELIMANUEL DIAZ
PEDRO OLIVO
ADRIAN SANCHEZ
DARYL SIMON
JEFFREY FERNANDEZ
JUAN VALDEZ
WILLIE TUCKER
KASAN NOBLE
DAMIAN SAUNDERS
DANIEL JEFFERSON
DERECK JEFFERSON
WAYNE SCOTT
ERIC RIVERA
MICHAEL MARTINEZ
MAXAMILLION MERCADO
KAREEM SIMMONDS
ALEXANDER PENA
ANTHONY CLASE
CARLOS ACOSTA
CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ
GABRIEL GONZALEZ
JESUS MATA
NANA OWUSU
ROBERTO RAMIREZ
WILPHER RODRIGUEZ
YAWILIS RODRIGUEZ
JESUS ABAD
ANGEL GUANCE
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
2
Robbery conspiracy
18 U.S.C. § 1951
EDWIN ROMERO
ADRIAN SANCHEZ
JUAN VALDEZ
WILLIE TUCKER
YAWILIS RODRIGUEZ
20 years in prison
3
Using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging firearms
18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and (iii), 2
EDWIN ROMERO
RAFAEL ROMERO
FRANCIS PALUZZI
LUIS GONZALEZ
ANIBAL GONZALEZ
CARLOS MOTA
ELIMANUEL DIAZ
PEDRO OLIVO
ADRIAN SANCHEZ
DARYL SIMON
JEFFREY FERNANDEZ
JUAN VALDEZ
WILLIE TUCKER
KASAN NOBLE
DAMIAN SAUNDERS
DANIEL JEFFERSON
DERECK JEFFERSON
WAYNE SCOTT
ERIC RIVERA
MICHAEL MARTINEZ
KAREEM SIMMONDS
ALEXANDER PENA
ANTHONY CLASE
CARLOS ACOSTA
CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ
GABRIEL GONZALEZ
JESUS MATA
NANA OWUSU
ROBERTO RAMIREZ
WILPHER RODRIGUEZ
YAWILIS RODRIGUEZ
JESUS ABAD
ANGEL GUANCE
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
4
Using, carrying, possessing, brandishing, and discharging firearms
18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), (iii), 924(c)(1)(C)(i), and 2
EDWIN ROMERO
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 25 years in prison
DEFENDANT
AGE
RESIDENCE
EDWIN ROMERO,
a/k/a “Yones”
a/k/a “Yoni”
35
Bronx, New York
RAFAEL ROMERO,
a/k/a “Kodi”
34
Bronx, New York
FRANCIS PALUZZI,
a/k/a “Fetty”
27
Bronx, New York
LUIS GONZALEZ,
a/k/a “Tili”
a/k/a “Bori”
39
Bronx, New York
ANIBAL GONZALEZ,
a/k/a “Foli”
34
Bronx, New York
CARLOS MOTA,
a/k/a “Culebra”
a/k/a “Snake”
47
Bronx, New York
ELIMANUEL DIAZ,
a/k/a “Lima”
27
Bronx, New York
PEDRO OLIVO,
a/k/a “Pito”
24
Bronx, New York
ADRIAN SANCHEZ,
a/k/a “Pachi”
23
Bronx, New York
DARYL SIMON,
a/k/a “D-Money”
19
Bronx, New York
JEFFREY FERNANDEZ,
a/k/a “Jefe”
19
Bronx, New York
JUAN VALDEZ,
a/k/a “Sito”
21
Bronx, New York
WILLIE TUCKER,
a/k/a “Big Will”
a/k/a “BJ”
a/k/a “BG”
38
Bronx, New York
KASAN NOBLE,
a/k/a “Kay Kay”
40
Bronx, New York
DAMIAN SAUNDERS,
a/k/a “Floss”
37
Bronx, New York
DANIEL JEFFERSON,
a/k/a “Ace”
30
Bronx, New York
DERECK JEFFERSON,
a/k/a “Bang”
28
Bronx, New York
WAYNE SCOTT,
a/k/a “Punch”
37
Bronx, New York
ERIC RIVERA,
a/k/a “Chucky”
a/k/a “Chuck Dollarz”
24
Bronx, New York
MICHAEL MARTINEZ
26
Bronx, New York
MAXAMILLION MERCADO,
a/k/a “Bully”
24
Bronx, New York
KAREEM SIMMONDS,
a/k/a “Kareem Simmons”
a/k/a “Black”
40
Bronx, New York
ALEXANDER PENA,
a/k/a “Green Eyes”
20
Bronx, New York
ANTHONY CLASE,
a/k/a “Ant”
30
Bronx, New York
CARLOS ACOSTA,
a/k/a “Greg”
23
Bronx, New York
CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ,
a/k/a “Dread”
21
Bronx, New York
GABRIEL GONZALEZ,
a/k/a “Gabi”
a/k/a “Baldy”
40
Bronx, New York
JESUS MATA,
a/k/a “Junior”
a/k/a “Jay”
20
Bronx, New York
NANA OWUSU,
a/k/a “Africa”
19
Bronx, New York
ROBERTO RAMIREZ
29
Bronx, New York
WILPHER RODRIGUEZ
23
Bronx, New York
YAWILIS RODRIGUEZ,
a/k/a “Will”
22
Bronx, New York
JESUS ABAD,
a/k/a “Rojo”
26
Bronx, New York
ANGEL GUANCE,
a/k/a “Chico”
a/k/a “All In”
27
Bronx, New York
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictments, and the description of the Indictments set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that GARY TANNER, a former executive at Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (“Valeant”), was sentenced today to 1 year and 1 day in prison, and ANDREW DAVENPORT, the former chief executive officer (“CEO”) of Philidor Rx Services LLC (“Philidor”), was sentenced today to 1 year and 1 day in prison, after having been found guilty by a federal jury for engaging in a multimillion-dollar kickback scheme. TANNER and DAVENPORT were sentenced in Manhattan federal court by Senior United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska, who also presided over the defendants’ four-week jury trial in May 2018.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Gary Tanner and Andrew Davenport conspired to deceive and defraud Tanner’s employer, Valeant, in order to enrich them both. Tanner was entrusted to manage Valeant’s relationship with Davenport’s company. Instead, they devised a scheme to pillage Valeant and share the proceeds. Now Tanner and Davenport have been sentenced for their crimes.”
According to the allegations in the charging documents, statements made in court proceedings, and the evidence introduced at trial:
Valeant is a publicly traded pharmaceutical manufacturer headquartered in Canada, with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Philidor was a specialty mail order pharmacy that was formed in or about January 2013 with the assistance of Valeant. During the course of Philidor’s existence, at least 90 percent of the drugs dispensed by Philidor were Valeant-branded drugs.
TANNER was the Valeant executive primarily responsible for managing Valeant’s relationship with Philidor. TANNER was also responsible more broadly for Valeant’s alternative fulfillment (“AF”) program. Through its AF program, Valeant sought to increase doctor prescriptions and patient purchases of Valeant pharmaceuticals instead of generic substitutes or alternatives by helping obtain insurance coverage for those drugs or providing other incentives for prescription and purchase of Valeant drugs. As part of his work at Valeant, TANNER interacted directly with Philidor’s executives, including DAVENPORT, and senior Valeant executives.
Valeant and Philidor began negotiations for Valeant to purchase Philidor, and Valeant ultimately purchased an option to buy Philidor (the “Option”) in exchange for $133 million in payments to Philidor’s owners, and the promise of $100 million in additional milestone payments if Philidor were to meet certain sales targets. Despite the duty of loyalty owed by TANNER to Valeant, during negotiations relating to the Option, TANNER and DAVENPORT secretly made preparations for TANNER to receive a multimillion-dollar kickback out of the money that Valeant was going to pay Philidor’s owners for the Option. Among other things, TANNER and DAVENPORT set up shell company bank accounts in order to launder the kickbacks to TANNER. While these preparations were underway, TANNER secretly advised DAVENPORT on his negotiations with Valeant. TANNER did this in contravention of his duties to Valeant and despite the fact that he was also internally advising Valeant in its negotiations with DAVENPORT about the Option.
In addition to secretly helping DAVENPORT negotiate against Valeant in exchange for the promise of a kickback from DAVENPORT, TANNER took other actions to benefit Philidor and DAVENPORT personally, and against the direction of his supervisors at Valeant. For example, TANNER’s supervisors directed him to identify other pharmacies that Valeant could use to distribute its drugs, in order to minimize the risks of overreliance on Philidor. TANNER deceived his supervisors into believing that he was pursuing their direction in good faith when, in fact, he lied about participating in meetings and doing due diligence on potential competitors to Philidor. In addition, TANNER helped Philidor and DAVENPORT secure favorable payment terms.
In order to keep their scheme hidden from Valeant, TANNER often used a Philidor email account that TANNER maintained in the name of “Brian Wilson” to communicate with DAVENPORT. TANNER also pretended to be Brian Wilson in at least one meeting that he and DAVENPORT participated in on behalf of Philidor.
In December 2014, Valeant acquired the Option. DAVENPORT, through two different entities that he controlled, received approximately $50 million of the $133 million that Valeant paid. DAVENPORT transferred $9.7 million of that amount to TANNER through a shell company he controlled, and then to a shell company controlled by TANNER, an entity called Befrielse Consolidated, LLC (“Befrielse”). TANNER concealed his receipt of this money from Valeant, in violation of his fiduciary duties to Valeant, and in violation of Valeant’s conflict of interest policies. Prior to receiving the funds, TANNER had repeatedly certified to Valeant that he was in full compliance with Valeant’s Standards of Business Conduct, which prohibited any conflicts of interest without full disclosure and approval by company management.
After the Option purchase was completed, TANNER continued to use his position at Valeant to advance the interests of Philidor and DAVENPORT, including by resisting Valeant’s efforts to collect payments from Philidor owed to Valeant and pursuing milestone payments under the terms of the Option that he secretly expected to share in. In communications concerning the scheme, using TANNER’s secret Brian Wilson email account, DAVENPORT discussed with TANNER how TANNER would secretly continue to promote DAVENPORT’s interests, even while he purported to represent Valeant’s interests as the Valeant executive responsible for Philidor. Among other things, DAVENPORT stated that he pictured his and TANNER’s “butch and sundance ride into the sunset (or off the cliff as in the flick),” to which TANNER responded, using the secret Brian Wilson account: “[G]ave me a good chuckle when I just saw it. Will have to keep playing the game :).”
* * *
In addition to the prison sentence, Judge Preska sentenced TANNER, 41, of Gilbert, Arizona, and DAVENPORT, 50, of Haverford, Pennsylvania, to two years of supervised release, and ordered each to forfeit approximately $9.7 million.
TANNER and DAVENPORT were found guilty by a unanimous jury on May 22, 2018, of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, honest services wire fraud, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Mr. Berman praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and thanked the United States Securities and Exchange Commission for its cooperation and assistance.
This case was prosecuted by the Office’s Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force and its Complex Frauds and Cyber Crime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Richard Cooper and Amanda Kramer are in charge of the prosecution.
Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Ivan J. Arvelo, the Special Agent in Charge of the New York Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), announced today the arrest of CHARLES RILEY CONSTANT, a/k/a “Chuck Constant,” for charges in connection with a scheme to steal and launder over $1 million in fraudulently obtained loans from the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), including the use of fraud proceeds to purchase cryptocurrency ATMs. CONSTANT was arrested yesterday morning and is being presented today before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas. In connection with CONSTANT’s arrest, law enforcement agents seized, among other things, 18 cryptocurrency ATMs in Texas and Oklahoma that CONSTANT purchased with fraud proceeds to start a cryptocurrency ATM business named “Coindawg LLC,” as well as Coindawg’s website.
U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “As alleged, Charles Constant helped to launder over $1 million of proceeds from loans that his co-conspirators fraudulently obtained from the SBA. He converted the bulk of the crime proceeds into Bitcoin for his co-conspirators and used a portion of the rest to start his own lucrative cryptocurrency ATM business. Thanks to this Office’s teamwork with the HSI, Constant is now facing serious criminal charges for his alleged crimes. We will continue to hold accountable people who steal funds intended for small businesses that struggled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
HSI Special Agent in Charge Ivan J. Arvelo said: “As alleged, Charles Constant specifically exploited the Small Business Administration’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan program put in place to help our small businesses weather the COVID-19 pandemic, for the purpose of expanding his criminal money laundering enterprise. Constant is accused of defrauding the federal government and robbing U.S. taxpayers with his illicit money-laundering scheme. HSI New York will continue to exhaust every resource at our disposal to ensure criminals like this will be held accountable for their actions.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint, which was unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:[1]
CHARLES RILEY CONSTANT, a/k/a “Chuck Constant,” knowingly assisted others involved in a scheme to fraudulently obtain over $1 million in loans from the SBA, which CONSTANT and his co-conspirators laundered through Bitcoin transactions. The perpetrators of the fraud against the SBA used false identities and non-existent companies to obtain seven Economic Injury Disaster Loans from the SBA — funds that were intended to help small businesses financially harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The loan proceeds were transferred directly from the SBA to a bank account held by C2 LLC, an entity that CONSTANT owned and registered with the U.S. Treasury Department as a money services business. CONSTANT then used approximately $700,000 of the crime proceeds — a portion of which he routed through a second bank account held by C2 LLC — to purchase Bitcoin from a cryptocurrency exchange headquartered in New York City. CONSTANT directed the New York-based exchange to distribute the Bitcoin to his co-conspirators.
CONSTANT then stole the remaining $300,000 of fraud proceeds. CONSTANT transferred $53,000 of the $300,000 to a third bank account held by C2 LLC and an additional $98,300 to an account in CONSTANT’s name at a cryptocurrency exchange headquartered in California. Beginning in the fall of 2020, CONSTANT used a portion of these fraud proceeds to purchase, among other things, seven cryptocurrency ATMs (“Crypto ATMs”), cryptocurrency, and promotional services to start a cryptocurrency ATM business named “Coindawg LLC.” CONSTANT used revenue generated by the seven Crypto ATMs to acquire additional Crypto ATMs and more cryptocurrency to expand Coindawg’s operations. To date, Coindawg has exchanged over $3,000,000 worth of cryptocurrency and charged 15% in transaction fees. Below is a photograph of one of the Coindawg Crypto ATMs seized by law enforcement in connection with CONSTANT’s arrest:
* * *
CONSTANT, 54, of Allen, Texas, is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; one count of theft of public money, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison; and one count of interstate receipt of stolen money, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Williams praised the investigative work of the HSI. Mr. Williams also thanked the HSI Field Office in Dallas, Texas, for their assistance in the investigation of this case.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Complex Frauds and Cybercrime Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sarah Lai, Olga I. Zverovich, and Andrew K. Chan are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint and the description of the Complaint set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.
Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced the unsealing today of an Indictment charging ANTONIO MORA, a/k/a “Chucky,” and BRIAN MORA, a/k/a “Dottie,” with the September 17, 2018, shooting of a rival drug dealer in connection with a drug conspiracy, after pulling his daughter from his hands. ANTONIO MORA will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. BRIAN MORA is already in federal custody. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Antonio and Brian Mora dealt heroin and crack cocaine in the Bronx. During a dispute with a rival drug crew, the defendants allegedly ripped the victim’s daughter out of his arms before shooting him. Thanks to our partners at the NYPD, the defendants now face federal charges for their brazen and callous crimes.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill stated: “This case illustrates the extreme violence that too often accompanies gang activity and the drug trade, and why we must be vigilant in keeping our communities safe. I want to thank the law enforcement professionals whose hard work and dedication secured these federal indictments.”
As alleged in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court[1]:
Between 2016 and 2018, ANTONIO MORA and BRIAN MORA were involved in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and heroin. During that same time period, ANTONIO MORA and BRIAN MORA used, carried, and discharged a firearm during and in furtherance of that drug conspiracy, including on September 17, 2018, when, in connection with a dispute with a rival drug crew, they shot a man after they pulled his daughter from his arms.
* * *
ANTONIO MORA, 25, of the Bronx, New York, and BRIAN MORA, 24, of the Bronx, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and heroin and one count of using and carrying a firearm, which was brandished and discharged, in connection with the narcotics conspiracy, each of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants would be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon is in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the descriptions of the Indictment constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
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
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
Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced the unsealing today of an Indictment charging ANTONIO MORA, a/k/a “Chucky,” and BRIAN MORA, a/k/a “Dottie,” with the September 17, 2018, shooting of a rival drug dealer in connection with a drug conspiracy, after pulling his daughter from his hands. ANTONIO MORA will be presented today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. BRIAN MORA is already in federal custody. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Antonio and Brian Mora dealt heroin and crack cocaine in the Bronx. During a dispute with a rival drug crew, the defendants allegedly ripped the victim’s daughter out of his arms before shooting him. Thanks to our partners at the NYPD, the defendants now face federal charges for their brazen and callous crimes.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill stated: “This case illustrates the extreme violence that too often accompanies gang activity and the drug trade, and why we must be vigilant in keeping our communities safe. I want to thank the law enforcement professionals whose hard work and dedication secured these federal indictments.”
As alleged in the Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court[1]:
Between 2016 and 2018, ANTONIO MORA and BRIAN MORA were involved in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and heroin. During that same time period, ANTONIO MORA and BRIAN MORA used, carried, and discharged a firearm during and in furtherance of that drug conspiracy, including on September 17, 2018, when, in connection with a dispute with a rival drug crew, they shot a man after they pulled his daughter from his arms.
* * *
ANTONIO MORA, 25, of the Bronx, New York, and BRIAN MORA, 24, of the Bronx, New York, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and heroin and one count of using and carrying a firearm, which was brandished and discharged, in connection with the narcotics conspiracy, each of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants would be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the NYPD.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon is in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the descriptions of the Indictment constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that RASHAN MICHEL, the owner of a bespoke clothing business in Atlanta, Georgia, pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to agreeing to facilitate bribes from a financial adviser to Chuck Connors Person (“Person”), a former Auburn University men’s basketball coach. The bribes were provided in exchange for Person using his influence over Auburn basketball players to retain MICHEL’s services and the services of the financial adviser paying the bribes. MICHEL pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As he admitted today, Rashan Michel was paid to facilitate bribe payments from a financial adviser to college basketball coaches. His corruption of the system was significant but, sadly, far from unique. Indeed, in the last year this Office has convicted nine defendants in connection with fraud or bribery in the world of college basketball. We will continue to pursue those who offer or take bribes to influence student-athletes without regard to their interest.”
According to the Complaint, the Indictment, statements made in court, and publicly available documents:
In the fall of 2016, MICHEL, the founder and operator of a clothing store that specialized in making bespoke suits for professional athletes, met a financial adviser and business manager who, unbeknownst to MICHEL, was providing information to law enforcement (“CW-1”). MICHEL told CW-1 that MICHEL could introduce CW-1 to several college basketball coaches, including Person, who was then a men’s basketball coach at Auburn University, who would be willing to accept bribes from CW-1. MICHEL and CW-1 agreed to offer such bribes in return for the coaches’ agreeing to exert their influence over student-athletes to retain the services of Michel and CW-1 once the student-athletes entered the National Basketball Association (“NBA”).
In November 2016, MICHEL, who had a preexisting relationship with Person, arranged a meeting in Auburn, Alabama, to introduce CW-1 to Person and to broker the arrangement between CW-1 and Person whereby CW-1 would provide bribes to Person. At that meeting, in exchange for bribes, Person agreed to exert his influence over certain student-athletes Person coached at Auburn University to retain the services of CW-1 and MICHEL once those players entered the NBA. Over the next several months, in exchange for the bribes described above, Person did, in fact, arrange a meeting among CW-1, MICHEL and an Auburn student-athlete in Manhattan. At that meeting, Person falsely touted CW-1’s qualifications as a financial adviser and business manager without disclosing that Person was, in fact, being bribed to recommend CW-1 to the student-athlete. In connection with the bribery scheme, Person also steered the parent of a second student-athlete to CW-1.
In addition to brokering the bribery scheme with Person, MICHEL also solicited and received for himself tens of thousands of dollars in payments from CW-1 in exchange for introducing CW-1 to Person, and for promising to introduce CW-1 to other basketball coaches at NCAA Division I universities to engage in a similar bribery arrangement. Ultimately, MICHEL did introduce one member of a university athletics department to CW-1 for the purpose of engaging in a similar scheme. Working with MICHEL, CW-1 made payments to that individual, who in turn attempted to steer the parent of a student-athlete to CW-1.
In all, CW-1 paid more than $91,500 in bribes to Person, and paid MICHEL $24,000 for his role in the scheme.
* * *
MICHEL, 44, of Atlanta, Georgia, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery. As a condition of his plea, MICHEL agreed to forfeit $24,000. The charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison. The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by a judge. Sentencing is scheduled for September 18, 2019, before Judge Preska.
Mr. Berman praised the work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Robert L. Boone, Aline R. Flodr, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that CHUCK CONNORS PERSON, a former men’s basketball coach at Auburn University (“Auburn”), pled guilty in Manhattan federal court today to receiving approximately $91,500 in cash bribes from athlete advisers in exchange for using his influence over Auburn basketball players to retain the services of the advisers paying the bribes. PERSON pled guilty before U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As he has now admitted, Chuck Person abused his position as a coach and mentor to student-athletes in exchange for personal gain. In taking tens of thousands of dollars in cash bribes, Person not only placed personal financial gain above his obligations to his employer and the student-athletes he coached, but he broke the law.”
According to the Complaint, the Indictment, statements made in court and publicly available documents:
Over the course of a year, PERSON, a former men’s basketball coach at Auburn University until shortly after his arrest, agreed to accept cash bribes in return for agreeing to exert his influence over student-athletes on the Division I men’s basketball team he coached to retain the services of the bribe-payers, including once the student-athletes entered the National Basketball Association (“NBA”).
Beginning in 2016, and continuing into September 2017, when PERSON was arrested, PERSON received approximately $91,500 in cash bribes from a financial adviser and business manager, who, unbeknownst to PERSON, was providing information to law enforcement (“CW-1”). In exchange for the cash bribes, PERSON agreed to exert his influence over certain student-athletes PERSON coached at Auburn University to retain the services of CW-1 once those players entered the NBA. The bribe payments are alleged to have been initially arranged by a co-conspirator who had a preexisting relationship with PERSON and operated a clothing store that specialized in making bespoke suits for professional athletes.
Over the course of the scheme, and in exchange for the cash bribes described above, PERSON did, in fact, arrange multiple meetings between CW-1 and Auburn players and/or their family members. In those meetings, PERSON falsely touted CW-1’s qualifications as a financial adviser and business manager without disclosing that PERSON was, in fact, being bribed to recommend CW-1. In one recorded meeting, PERSON stressed to an Auburn University player the importance of keeping their relationship with CW-1 a secret. Person stated, “most important part is that you . . . don’t say nothing to anybody . . . don’t share with your sisters, don’t share with any of the teammates, that’s very important cause this is a violation . . . of rules, but this is how the NBA players get it done, they get early relationships, and they form partnerships.” PERSON later told that player that CW-1 would purchase him a separate cell phone over which they could communicate so as to conceal the nature of the scheme.
* * *
PERSON, 54, of Auburn, Alabama, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery. As a condition of his plea, PERSON agreed to forfeit $91,500. The charge carries a maximum term of five years in prison. The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge. Sentencing is scheduled for July 9th, 2019, before Judge Preska.
Mr. Berman praised the work of the FBI and the Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Robert L. Boone, Aline R. Flodr, Noah Solowiejczyk, and Eli J. Mark are in charge of the prosecution.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The 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
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The 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
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that DEANDRE MORRISON, a/k/a “D-Nice,” was sentenced today to 318 months in prison for the murder of Danny Delgado on August 1, 2011. MORRISON shot and killed Delgado at the direction of a high-ranking member of the MacBallas, a subset of the Bloods street gang, in the Bronx. MORRISON was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, after previously pleading guilty to racketeering conspiracy and narcotics conspiracy offenses.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “Deandre Morrison executed Danny Delgado in cold blood right outside his home. For this senseless act of violence, Morrison will now serve over 26 years in prison. We thank the NYPD and the DEA for their tireless work pursuing justice in this case.”
According to court filings and statements made in connection with the sentencing proceeding:
Beginning in or around 2011, MORRISON was an associate of the MacBallas, who sold crack cocaine in MacBalla territory. On or about August 1, 2011, a high-ranking member of the MacBallas approached MORRISON and asked him to kill Danny Delgado because the high-ranking gang member believed that Delgado had publicly disrespected him. MORRISON agreed to commit the murder, which was a means for him to increase his status among the MacBallas. That same night, MORRISON walked to Delgado’s residence on East 153rd Street in the Bronx, walked up to Delgado, and opened fire, shooting Delgado three times, then fled on foot. Delgado died from his injuries later that night. After committing this murder, MORRISON gained both membership and heightened status within the MacBallas, and he remained a member of the gang for years.
* * *
In addition to the prison term, MORRISON, 28, of the Bronx, New York, was sentenced to 3 years of supervised release.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the NYPD and the DEA.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Christopher Clore, Maurene Comey, and Justin Rodriguez are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James J. Hunt, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), and James P. O’Neill, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), announced additional charges in a Superseding Indictment against a member of the “MacBallas” gang based in the Andrew Jackson and Melrose Houses in the Bronx. In the Superseding Indictment, which was returned today, NATHANIEL FLUDD, a/k/a “Juntao,” is charged with the September 15, 2011, murder of Jose Webster, a/k/a “Spillz.”
FLUDD and a co-defendant were previously charged with the 2011 murder of Daniel Delgado in an Indictment unsealed on June 27, 2018. That Indictment also charges 20 members and associates of the MacBallas with racketeering, narcotics trafficking, robbery, and firearms offenses. In addition to the new charges related to the Webster murder, the Superseding Indictment re-alleges the charges that had previously been brought in the Indictment against FLUDD and 19 others. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote. FLUDD and the 19 other defendants will be arraigned on the new charges later in the week.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Jose Webster was murdered in 2011 by Nathaniel Fludd and other members of the violent MacBallas gang. We thank our law enforcement partners for their extraordinary efforts investigating this murder. With their help, we will continue our efforts to eradicate this senseless gang violence from our communities.”
DEA Special Agent-in-Charge James J. Hunt said: “The comprehensive investigations into gang-related crime have an uncanny knack for uncovering and linking additional crimes to defendants. In this case, we identified not just one, but two murders committed by one of the gang members, Nathaniel Fludd. I commend the agents, detectives, and prosecutors for their diligent work on this investigation.”
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the NYPD’s Bronx Violent Crimes Squad and the New York Field Division of the DEA.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Christopher Clore, Jordan Estes, and Maurene Comey are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Superseding Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, James P. O’Neill, the Commissioner of the Police Department for the City of New York (“NYPD”), and James J. Hunt, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), announced the unsealing today of a Superseding Indictment charging a total of 20 members and associates of a branch of the MacBallas street gang operating primarily in and around the Andrew Jackson and Melrose Houses in the Bronx with racketeering, narcotics, robbery, and firearms offenses. Two defendants are charged with the 2011 murder of Daniel Delgado.
A total of 12 defendants were taken into custody today; three other defendants were already in federal custody; and three are in state custody. Fourteen of the 20 defendants will be presented and arraigned before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox later today. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged in the Indictment, the defendants brought violence, fear, and drugs to the streets of New York. The people of this city will not stand for it, and neither will we. Thanks to the extraordinary work of the NYPD and DEA, the defendants will now face justice for their alleged crimes.”
NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill said: “Gang and crew activity, particularly in the Bronx as we’ve seen of late, is responsible for much of the violence in our city. This behavior will never be tolerated by New Yorkers, and I thank our federal partners at the DEA and the Southern District for strengthening the NYPD’s relentless efforts to rid our streets of these criminals.”
DEA Special Agent-in-Charge James J. Hunt said: “Gang violence begets violence and turns neighborhoods into battlegrounds. Law enforcement knows that shutting down gangs’ drug and gun networks lays a foundation for safer communities. Today’s arrests demonstrate that we are proactively safeguarding our communities by dismantling one gang at a time.”
As alleged in the Superseding Indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court and in other court papers[1]:
From 2011 through June 2018, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, TOSHNELLE FOSTER, a/k/a “Tosh,” CHRISTOPHER ASHE, a/k/a “Chips,” DAWAYNE BELL, JASON CHRISTIAN, a/k/a “Hungry,” NAVONE DOZIER, a/k/a “Dollaz,” KEVON GAITHER, a/k/a “KK,” CLARENCE GLASGO, a/k/a “Chuck,” XAVIER HOLMAN, a/k/a “Rico,” JAFARI JONES, a/k/a “JJ,” SEAN JONES, a/k/a “S Dot,” KEENAN MCFARLAND, AUSTIN MORRISHOW, a/k/a “Chuckey,” DEANDRE MORRISON, a/k/a “D Nice,” DEONTE MORRISON, a/k/a “Suki,” KEITH OUTLAW, a/k/a “Keefy,” LASYAH PALMER, a/k/a “Timbo,” JASON RAMOS, a/k/a “Chico,” FRANCISCO TORRES, a/k/a “Baby,” and BO WILLIAMS, a/k/a “Boski,” were all members and associates of the MacBallas street gang, whose territory was centered in and around the Andrew Jackson and Melrose housing projects in the Bronx, New York. In order to fund the gang, protect its territory, and promote its standing, members of the MacBallas engaged in, among other things, narcotics trafficking, robbery, and other acts of violence, including murder. MacBallas members sold heroin, crack cocaine, and marijuana in the gang’s territory, promoted their gang affiliation on social media sites like Facebook, possessed shared firearms, and engaged in shootings as part of their gang membership.
In particular, on August 1, 2011, DEANDRE MORRISON and NATHANIEL FLUDD murdered Daniel Delgado in order to maintain and increase their status in the MacBallas gang.
Members of the MacBallas gang also participated in a conspiracy to distribute narcotics in and around the MacBallas territory in the Bronx. In particular, CHRISTIAN, ASHE, DOZIER, GAITHER, JAFARI JONES, SEAN JONES, McFARLAND, MORRISHOW, DEONTE MORRISON, OUTLAW, PALMER, RAMOS, TORRES, and WILLIAMS participated in a conspiracy to distribute heroin, marijuana, and more than 280 grams of crack cocaine.
* * *
Charts containing the names, charges, and maximum penalties for the defendants are set forth below. The maximum potential sentences in this case are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the NYPD’s Bronx Violent Crimes Squad and the New York Field Division of the DEA.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Violent and Organized Crime Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Jordan Estes, Maurene Comey, and Christopher Clore are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Indictments are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
COUNT
CHARGE
DEFENDANTS
MAX. PENALTIES
1
Racketeering
Conspiracy
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
TOSHNELLE FOSTER, 26
CHRISTOPHER ASHE, 21
DAWAYNE BELL, 27
JASON CHRISTIAN, 37
NAVONE DOZIER, 23
KEVON GAITHER, 22
CLARENCE GLASGO, 23
XAVIER HOLMAN, 28
JAFARI JONES, 23
SEAN JONES, 28
KEENAN McFARLAND, 22
AUSTIN MORRISHOW, 20
DEANDRE MORRISON, 26
DEONTE MORRISON, 24
KEITH OUTLAW, 26
LASYAH PALMER, 29
JASON RAMOS, 23
FRANCISCO TORRES, 27
BO WILLIAMS, 27
20 years
2
Narcotics
Conspiracy
21 U.S.C. § 846
JASON CHRISTIAN
CHRISTOPHER ASHE
NAVONE DOZIER
KEVON GAITHER
JAFARI JONES
SEAN JONES
KEENAN McFARLAND
AUSTIN MORRISHOW
DEONTE MORRISON
KEITH OUTLAW
LASYAH PALMER
JASON RAMOS
FRANCISCO TORRES
BO WILLIAMS
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
3
Murder in Aid of
Racketeering
18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1)
NATHANIEL FLUDD
DEANDRE MORRISON
Death, or Life in prison
4
Causing Death through use of a Firearm
18 U.S.C. § 924(j)
NATHANIEL FLUDD
DEANDRE MORRISON
Death, or Life in prison
5
Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering
18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3), 1959(a)(5) and 2
SEAN JONES
NAVONE DOZIER
DAWAYNE BELL
CLARENCE GLASGO
20 years in prison
6
Firearms Offense
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2
SEAN JONES
NAVONE DOZIER
DAWAYNE BELL
CLARENCE GLASGO
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
7
Hobs Act Robbery
18 U.S.C. § 1951
JAFARI JONES
20 years in prison
8
Firearms Offense
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2
JAFARI JONES
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
9
Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering
18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3), 1959(a)(5) and 2
KEITH OUTLAW
20 years in prison
10
Firearms Offense
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2
KEITH OUTLAW
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
11
Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering
18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3), 1959(a)(5) and 2
DEONTE MORRISON
20 years in prison
12
Firearms Offense
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2
DEONTE MORRISON
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
13
Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering
18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3), 1959(a)(5) and 2
TOSHNELLE FOSTER
20 years in prison
14
Firearms Offense
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2
TOSHNELLE FOSTER
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
15
Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering
18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3), 1959(a)(5) and 2
KEITH OUTLAW
20 years in prison
16
Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering
18 U.S.C. §§ 1959(a)(3), 1959(a)(5) and 2
XAVIER HOLMAN
20 years in prison
17
Firearms Offense
18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2
XAVIER HOLMAN
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
18
Felon in Possession of Ammunition
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
XAVIER HOLMAN
10 years in prison
19
Felon in Possession of Ammunition
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
KEENAN McFARLAND
10 years in prison
20
Firearms Offense
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 2
JASON CHRISTIAN
KEENAN McFARLAND
AUSTIN MORRISHOW
LASYAH PALMER
JASON RAMOS
FRANCISCO TORRES
BO WILLIAMS
Life in prison
Mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment constitutes only allegations, and every fact described herein should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The 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
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The 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
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fifth highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the second most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE2 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE2
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE2
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the third most severe
disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE3 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 TTITLE3
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE3
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE3
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that
carried the fourth most
severe disposition and
Penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE4
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE4
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE4
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE4 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 TTITLE4
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE4
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE4
Format: N8
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense under which the defendant was disposed that carried the fifth most severe disposition and penalty
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE5
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE5
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE5
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE5
Format: N4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE5
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE5
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE5
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Joon H. Kim, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), announced the arrest today of 10 individuals, including four Division I NCAA men’s basketball coaches and a senior executive at a major athletic apparel company (“Company-1”), in connection with two related fraud and corruption schemes. In the first scheme, as alleged in the three Complaints unsealed today, college basketball coaches took cash bribes from athlete advisors, including business managers and financial advisors, in exchange for using their influence over college players under their control to pressure and direct those players and their families to retain the services of the advisors paying the bribes. In the second scheme, a senior executive at Company-1, working in connection with corrupt advisors, funneled bribe payments to high school-aged players and their families to secure those players’ commitments to attend universities sponsored by Company-1, rather than universities sponsored by rival athletic apparel companies.
The three Complaints unsealed today charge four coaches, CHUCK CONNORS PERSON, LAMONT EVANS, EMANUEL RICHARDSON, a/k/a “Book,” and ANTHONY BLAND, a/k/a “Tony”; three athlete advisors, CHRISTIAN DAWKINS, MUNISH SOOD, and RASHAN MICHEL; a senior executive at Company-1, JAMES GATTO, a/k/a “Jim,” along with two individuals affiliated with Company-1, MERL CODE and JONATHAN BRAD AUGUSTINE, with wire fraud, bribery, travel act, and conspiracy offenses. The defendants were all arrested this morning in various parts of the country. DAWKINS, SOOD, and AUGUSTINE are scheduled to appear before U.S. Magistrate James L. Cott in federal court later today.
Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Joon H. Kim said: “The picture of college basketball painted by the charges is not a pretty one – coaches at some of the nation’s top programs taking cash bribes, managers and advisors circling blue-chip prospects like coyotes, and employees of a global sportswear company funneling cash to families of high school recruits. For the ten charged men, the madness of college basketball went well beyond the Big Dance in March. Month after month, the defendants allegedly exploited the hoop dreams of student-athletes around the country, treating them as little more than opportunities to enrich themselves through bribery and fraud schemes. The defendants’ alleged criminal conduct not only sullied the spirit of amateur athletics, but showed contempt for the thousands of players and coaches who follow the rules, and play the game the right way.”
FBI Assistant Director William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “Today’s charges detail a corrupt practice in which highly rated high school and college basketball players were steered toward lucrative business deals with agents, advisors, and an international athletics apparel company. As alleged, NCAA Division I and AAU coaches created a pay-to-play culture, agreeing to provide access to their most valuable players while also effectively exerting their influence over them. Today’s arrests should also serve as a warning to those who conduct business this way in the world of college athletics.”According to allegations contained in the three Complaints[1] unsealed today in Manhattan federal court, and other publicly available documents:
Overview of the Investigation
The charges in the Complaints result from a scheme involving bribery, corruption, and fraud in intercollegiate athletics. Since 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the FBI have been investigating the criminal influence of money on coaches and student-athletes who participate in intercollegiate basketball governed by the NCAA. The investigation has revealed two related schemes. In the first scheme (the “Coach Bribery Scheme”), athlete advisors – including financial advisors and business managers, among others – allegedly paid bribes to assistant and associate head basketball coaches at NCAA Division I universities, and sometimes directly to student-athletes at those universities, facilitated by the coaches. In exchange for the bribes, the coaches agreed to pressure and exert influence over student-athletes under their control to retain the services of the bribe-payors once the athletes entered the National Basketball Association (“NBA”).
In the second scheme (the “Company-1 Scheme”), athlete advisors working with high-level Company-1 employees, allegedly paid bribes to student-athletes playing at, or bound for, NCAA Division I universities, and to the families of such athletes. These bribes were paid in exchange for a commitment by the athletes to matriculate at a specific university sponsored by Company-1, and a promise to ultimately sign agreements to be represented by the bribe-payors once the athletes entered the NBA.
Participants in both schemes allegedly took steps to conceal the illegal payments, including (i) funneling them to athletes and/or their families indirectly through surrogates and entities controlled by the scheme participants; and (ii) making or intending to make misrepresentations to the relevant universities regarding the involvement of student-athletes and coaches in the schemes, in violation of NCAA rules.
As described in the complaints, these schemes operated as a fraud on the universities involved, all of which provide scholarships to players and salaries to coaches with the understanding and expectation that the players and coaches are in full compliance with all relevant NCAA rules and regulations. Moreover, these schemes subject the universities to substantial potential penalties by the NCAA, including, but not limited to, financial fines and penalties as well as the potential loss of eligibility to compete in various NCAA events.
The Coach Bribery Schemes
The first scheme alleged in the Complaints entailed bribes by DAWKINS and SOOD, among others, to four men’s basketball coaches, PERSON, EVANS, RICHARDSON and BLAND, in exchange for the coaches’ agreement to direct players under their control, and the players’ families, to retain DAWKINS and SOOD once the players entered the NBA. These corrupt arrangements, which turn on the coaches’ abuse of their positions of trust at the universities, are valuable both to the coaches, who receive cash bribes, and to the bribe-payors, for whom securing a future NBA player as a client can prove extremely profitable.
Allegations Involving Chuck Person
Beginning in or around 2016, and continuing into 2017, PERSON, a former NBA player and the associate head coach at University-1, abused his coaching position at University-1 to solicit and obtain approximately $91,500 in bribe payments from a financial advisor and business manager for professional athletes, who, unbeknownst to PERSON, was providing information to law enforcement (“CW-1”). In exchange for the bribes, PERSON agreed to direct certain University-1 basketball players to retain the services of CW-1 when those student-athletes entered the NBA. The bribe payments initially were arranged by MICHEL, who had a preexisting relationship with PERSON and operated a clothing store that specialized in making bespoke suits for professional athletes. Over the course of the scheme, PERSON did, in fact, arrange multiple meetings between CW-1 and players and/or their family members, in which he falsely touted CW-1’s qualifications without disclosing that he was being bribed to recommend CW-1. For example, at one meeting, PERSON told the mother of a player at University-1 that CW-1 was PERSON’s own financial advisor and had also advised NBA Hall of Fame inductee (and University-1 alumnus) Charles Barkley, neither of which was true. PERSON similarly told another player that CW-1 would purchase him a separate cell phone over which they could communicate so as to conceal the nature of the scheme.
In addition to the bribe payments that PERSON solicited and received, PERSON also arranged for CW-1 to make payments directly to the families of the players PERSON was steering to CW-1. PERSON further claimed to have given approximately $18,500 of the bribe money he received to the families of two student-athletes whom PERSON sought to steer to retain CW-1.
Allegations Involving Lamont Evans
Beginning in 2016, and continuing into 2017, EVANS solicited at least $22,000 from CW-1 and SOOD in exchange for EVANS’s agreement to exert his official influence over certain student-athletes that EVANS coached at two NCAA Division I universities, University-3 and University-4, to retain SOOD and CW-1’s business management and financial advisory services once those players entered the NBA. In return, EVANS (who had received bribe payments from DAWKINS previously), promised SOOD and CW-1 that he would steer multiple specific players to retain their services. Indeed, as a part of the scheme, EVANS arranged for CW-1 to meet with a student-athlete EVANS coached at University-4 (“Player-4”), and arranged for SOOD to meet with the mother of another student-athlete EVANS had previously coached at University-3, for the purpose of pressuring them to retain SOOD and CW-1. Moreover, and in return for the bribe payments, EVANS falsely touted the services of SOOD and CW-1 to players and their families, telling Player-4, for example, that CW-1 was “my guy,” adding, falsely, that CW-1 “has helped me personally. And I trust that,” and assuring Player-4 that “[i]t’s going to benefit you. I promise you that.” In explaining the benefit of bribing an assistant coach such as EVANS, DAWKINS explained to SOOD and CW-1 that because coaches like EVANS could not get “caught” receiving bribes because “his job is on the line,” EVANS and other corrupt coaches would have an incentive to “block” other athlete advisors from accessing the players under the coaches’ supervision and directing those players to the bribe-payors.
Beginning in or around February 2017, and continuing through September 2017, DAWKINS and SOOD, along with two undercover law enforcement agents posing as financial backers of CW-1 (“UC-1” and “UC-2,” respectively), paid or facilitated the payment of $20,000 in bribes to RICHARDSON in return for RICHARDSON’s commitment to steer players under his control at University-4 to retain DAWKINS and SOOD’s services upon entering the NBA. During that period, RICHARDSON repeatedly assured DAWKINS and SOOD that RICHARDSON would use his influence over players at Univeristy-4 to direct them to DAWKINS and SOOD, explaining, with respect to one particular player DAWKINS and SOOD sought to sign (“Player-6”), that Player-6 would be “insulated in who he talks to.” RICHARDSON added, with respect to himself, that “you’re looking at the guy” whom Player-6 trusted. RICHARDSON subsequently facilitated at least one meeting between DAWKINS, SOOD, and a representative of Player-6 for the purpose of having that representative commit the player to retain DAWKINS and SOOD’s business management and financial advisory services. In addition, RICHARDSON appears to have provided a portion of the bribe money he received from DAWKINS, SOOD, UC-1, and UC-2 to at least one prospective high school basketball player (“Player-5”) in order to recruit that player to play for University-4.
Allegations Involving Anthony Bland, a/k/a “Tony,”
Beginning in or around July 2017, and continuing into September 2017, DAWKINS and SOOD, working with UC-1, paid and/or facilitated the payment of at least $13,000 in bribes to BLAND in exchange for BLAND’s agreement to exert his official influence over certain student-athletes BLAND coached at University-5, to retain DAWKINS and SOOD’s business management and/or financial advisory services once those players entered the NBA. In particular, as BLAND told DAWKINS and SOOD, in return for their bribe payments, “I definitely can get the players. . . . And I can definitely mold the players and put them in the lap of you guys.” In addition, and as part of the scheme, at BLAND’s direction DAWKINS and SOOD paid or facilitated the payment of an additional $9,000 directly to the families of two student-athletes at University-5. In return, BLAND facilitated a meeting between DAWKINS and SOOD and a relative of a player currently attending University-5 (“Player-9”) for the purpose of pressuring Player-9 to retain DAWKINS and SOOD.
The Company-1 Scheme
In addition to the Coach Bribery Scheme described above, the investigation further revealed a second, related scheme. In the second scheme, JAMES GATTO, a/k/a “Jim,” a high-level executive at Company-1, and MERL CODE, an individual affiliated with Company-1 and its high school and college basketball programs, conspired to pay high school basketball players or their families for commitments by those players to attend and play for aCompany-1-sponsored university, and to sign with Company-1 upon turning professional. In addition, DAWKINS, SOOD, and JONATHAN BRAD AUGUSTINE brokered and facilitated the corrupt payments in exchange for a promise that the players also would retain the services of DAWKINS and SOOD upon turning professional.
Specifically, in or around 2017, GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, AUGUSTINE, and SOOD agreed to pay bribes to at least three high school basketball players or their families in the following manner:
Allegations Involving Player-10 and University-6
First, GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, and SOOD worked together to funnel $100,000 from Company-1 to the family of a high school basketball player (“Player-10”) in exchange for Player-10’s commitment to play at an NCAA Division I university whose athletic programs are sponsored by Company-1 (“University-6”), and in further exchange for a commitment from Player-10 to retain DAWKINS and SOOD, and to sign with Company-1, once Player-10 joined the NBA. DAWKINS told CW-1 and others on a recorded conversation that he did so at the request of a coach at University-6 (“Coach-2”), and call records show that GATTO spoke directly with Coach-2 multiple times in the days before Player-10 publicly committed to attending University-6.
Moreover, because the payments to the family of Player-10 were both in violation of NCAA rules and illegal, they were disguised by GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, and SOOD using fake purchase orders, invoices and related documents to make them appear to be payments from Company-1 to CODE’s company. As CODE explained to DAWKINS, while such payments are sometimes made “off the books,” for this particular payment, GATTO and CODE had identified it to Company-1 as “as a payment to my team, to my organization, so it’s on the books, [but] it’s not on the books for what it’s actually for.” Indeed, the money, once allocated by Company-1, was funneled back to DAWKINS to use to pay the father of Player-10 in cash.
Allegations Involving Player-11 and University-6
Second, DAWKINS and AUGUSTINE agreed to facilitate payments to the family of another high school basketball player (“Player-11”) in exchange for Player-11’s commitment to play at University-6 and ultimately to retain DAWKINS’s services. While these payments were not directly funded by Company-1, they were made to benefit Company-1, which, as noted, sponsors University-6, and with the expectation that Company-1 would provide additional funding to AUGUSTINE in return. AUGUSTINE noted, “all [Coach-2] has to do is pick up the phone and call somebody [and say] these are my guys, they’re taking care of us.”
Because these payments from DAWKINS to Player-11’s family were both in violation of NCAA rules and illegal, AUGUSTINE suggested that the “easiest way” for DAWKINS to provide money for Player-11 and his family would be to send the money to AUGUSTINE’s “non-profit for the grassroots team,” although AUGUSTINE confirmed that he also would accept cash.
As DAWKINS subsequently explained to UC-2 in the context of providing such money to AUGUSTINE and others, “obviously some of it can’t be completely accounted for on paper because some of it is, whatever you want to call it, illegal.”
Allegations Involving Player-12 and University-7
Third, GATTO, CODE, DAWKINS, and AUGUSTINE agreed to make payments of as much as $150,000 from Company-1 to another high school basketball player (“Player-12”) in order to secure Player-12’s commitment to play at an NCAA Division I university whose athletic programs are also sponsored by Company-1 (“University-7”). Because Player-12 played for an amateur team run by AUGUSTINE and sponsored by Company-1, AUGUSTINE, with the assistance of CODE and DAWKINS, attempted to broker the deal to secure Player-12’s commitment to attend University-7 rather than a school sponsored by a rival athletic apparel company. In exchange for the payment, Player-12 similarly was expected to commit to retaining DAWKINS’s services and signing with Company-1 once Player-12 joined the NBA.
Much as with the payments to Player-10 described above, according to intercepted calls, GATTO stated that the payments from Company-1 to Player-12 were allegedly requested specifically by a coach at University-7 (“Coach-3”), who allegedly called GATTO directly and who, according to DAWKINS, CODE, and AUGUSTINE, “knows everything” and, in particular, “knows something’s gotta happen for” Player-12 to commit to attending University-7.
The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by a judge.
Mr. Kim praised the work of the FBI and the Criminal Investigators of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
Anyone with information relevant to the investigation is asked to contact the FBI at the special phone number established to receive such information, (212) 384-2135.
The case is being handled by the Office’s Public Corruption Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Robert Boone, Russell Capone, Edward B. Diskant, and Noah Solowiejczyk are in charge of the prosecution.
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the texts of the Complaints and the descriptions of the Complaints set forth below constitute only allegations and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
St. Louis, MO - The United States Attorney=s Office announced today that William “Chuckie” Clarett was convicted of federal conspiracy to commit murder for hire involving the murder of Travis Hayden.
On April 22, 2015, Travis Hayden was murdered in Berkeley, MO. A witness identified William Clarett, a/k/a “Chuckie” as the shooter. That same day, the witness gave a written statement to police and picked Clarett out in a photospread. On December 31, 2015, investigators arrested Clarett for the murder of Travis Hayden. A complaint was issued on January 1, 2016, charging Clarett with Murder 1st Degree and Armed Criminal Action. Clarett was detained at the St. Louis County Justice Center.
On February 10, 2016, the witness testified before a grand jury in St. Louis County and the Grand Jury returned a true bill on the murder and ACA counts. The witness’ name and address were publicly disclosed in connection with the indictment. While Clarett was detained in the Justice Center on the murder, Clarett began talking to an inmate that he knew from the neighborhood. The inmate advised authorities that Clarett was asking him to help find someone to kill the witness. ATF then arranged to have an Undercover Officer (UC) pose as a potential hitman. Between June 14, 2016 and June 30, 2016, Clarett spoke to UC six times over the phone about killing the witness. On July 1, 2016, Clarett met with UC at the Justice Center and told him he would provide UC with the down payment for the murder. Thereafter, Clarett released $500 from his commissary which was later given to the UC along with the photograph of the witness.
Clarett, 34, Berkeley, MO, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit murder for hire. The three-day trial was held before United States District Judge Audrey Fleissig. Sentencing has been set for September 2017.
Clarett is facing a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. In determining the actual sentences, a Judge is required to consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which provide recommended sentencing ranges.
This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives and the Cottleville Police Department.
St. Louis, MO - William “Chuckie” Clarett was sentenced to 120 months in prison after having been found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder for hire.
According to court documents, on April 22, 2015, Travis Hayden was murdered in Berkeley, MO. A witness identified William Clarett, a/k/a “Chuckie” as the shooter. That same day, the witness gave a written statement to police and picked Clarett out in a photospread. On December 31, 2015, investigators arrested Clarett for the murder of Travis Hayden. A complaint was issued on January 1, 2016, charging Clarett with Murder 1st Degree and Armed Criminal Action. Clarett was detained at the St. Louis County Justice Center.
On February 10, 2016, the witness testified before a grand jury in St. Louis County and the Grand Jury returned a true bill on the murder and ACA counts. The witness’ name and address were publicly disclosed in connection with the indictment. While Clarett was detained in the Justice Center on the murder, Clarett began talking to an inmate that he knew from the neighborhood. The inmate advised authorities that Clarett was asking him to help find someone to kill the witness. ATF then arranged to have an Undercover Officer (UC) pose as a potential hitman. Between June 14, 2016 and June 30, 2016, Clarett spoke to UC six times over the phone about killing the witness. On July 1, 2016, Clarett met with UC at the Justice Center and told him he would provide UC with the down payment for the murder. Thereafter, Clarett released $500 from his commissary which was later given to the UC along with the photograph of the witness.
Clarett, 34, Berkeley, MO, was convicted in May to one count of conspiracy to commit murder for hire, and appeared today for sentenced before United States District Judge Audrey Fleissig.
This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives and the Cottleville Police Department.
PHILADELPHIA – U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain announced that Charles F. Kohlerman, IV, 50, of Media, PA, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release by United States District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 14 counts of distributing and dispensing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. The Court further ordered the defendant to pay a special assessment of $1,500 and $1,699Kohlerman pleaded guilty to these criminal charges in September 2019.
The charges stem from Kohlerman’s role as a licensed pharmacist and the owner of Kohlerman Pharmacy. Kohlerman’s patients sought to fill prescriptions of brand-name Lipitor® and its generic equivalent, atorvastatin calcium. Regardless of their need, and often without their knowledge, Kohlerman enrolled the vast majority of these patients in Manufacturer One’s Lipitor Savings Card coupon program (the “Program”). Under the Program, Kohlerman billed a patient’s private insurance and then submitted a secondary claim to Manufacturer One for payment to his pharmacy in a scheme to defraud the Program.
In order to carry out his scheme, Kohlerman purchased a negligible quantity of brand-name Lipitor® for his pharmacy and significant quantities of its much cheaper generic equivalent. Kohlerman dispensed the generic equivalent in bottles with brand-name Lipitor® on the labels and then submitted claims to Manufacturer One for reimbursement for the brand-name drug that he neither purchased nor dispensed. To maximize his fraudulent returns, Kohlerman created fake prescriptions for Lipitor®—that neither he nor his pharmacy dispensed—and submitted claims for those fake prescriptions to the Program. Kohlerman also changed physician-issued, one-month supply prescriptions of Lipitor® to a three-month supply prescription to triple the fraudulent refund he would receive from Manufacturer One. Additionally, Kohlerman altered legitimate prescriptions that permitted generic substitution to require distribution of the brand name drug, all while he filled actual brand-only prescriptions with the generic equivalent. Kohlerman submitted false and fraudulent claims to Manufacturer One of $4,562,834.97 and was paid $1,696,566.22.
As part of his scheme, Kohlerman also submitted approximately 126 false and fraudulent Lipitor® claims to the Medicare program, approximately two false and fraudulent Lipitor® claims to the Medicaid program, and approximately 18 false and fraudulent Lipitor® claims to federal employee health benefits programs paid for by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Kohlerman was reimbursed $106,986.70 from Medicare, $2,686.60 from Medicaid, and $5,600.31 from OPM.
In addition to the wire fraud scheme, Kohlerman also ignored suspicious activity on 14 separate occasions and, in each instance, distributed or caused to be distributed 120 oxycodone 30 mg tablets to a purported pharmacy customer. The customer, however, was not the individual for whom the oxycodone was prescribed. Additional warning signs that Kohlerman ignored included: (1) the quantity of narcotics exceeded Center for Disease Control recommendations for standard medical usage; (2) both the customer and the purported patient lived over 45 minutes away from the pharmacy; (3) the purported patient’s prescribing physician practiced a similar distance away; (4) the purported patient never picked up his/her prescriptions in person and did not visit the pharmacy in person; and (5) the customer filled prescriptions on behalf of the purported patient before they were eligible for refills.
Finally, as part of a civil resolution, Kohlerman and Kohlerman Pharmacy have agreed to pay the United States $300,000.00 to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., that both Kohlerman and the pharmacy submitted or caused the submission of approximately 146 false claims for Lipitor® when they had, in fact, substituted the generic equivalent for those claims. The civil allegations against Kohlerman Pharmacy are allegations only and there has been no finding of liability as to the pharmacy.
“Kohlerman put his own greed above his patients’ well-being,” said U.S. Attorney McSwain. “By changing patients’ legitimately prescribed medications, unbeknownst to them, Kohlerman pumped up the amount of money he could steal. By doing so, he ripped off the American taxpayer and private industry alike. Kohlerman’s self-interest is also reflected in his wanton distribution of illegal painkillers. This criminal sentence and civil resolution demonstrate the coordination between My Office’s Criminal and Civil Divisions and our Health Care Fraud Strike Force. We will use every weapon in our arsenal—criminal and civil—to prosecute medical professionals who put profits over the well-being of patients.”
Thomas W. South, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, OPM OIG, said: “In addition to unethically changing patients’ prescriptions without their knowledge or consent, Mr. Kohlerman’s greed also endangered patients’ health through the careless prescription of opioids. The opioid crisis is fueled by corrupt providers that dispense and distribute narcotics outside the course of professional practice and for no legitimate medical purpose. OPM OIG will not tolerate those who put profits above the well-being of patients.”
“As a pharmacist, Kohlerman has a corresponding responsibility, similar to that of a doctor, to insure that prescriptions for controlled substances are filled for a legitimate medical purpose and within the course of professional practice,” said Jonathan A. Wilson, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Philadelphia Field Division. “Kohlerman repeatedly ignored that responsibility by dispensing multiple prescriptions for powerful prescription painkillers such as oxycodone to people other than the patient named on the prescription, dispensed before they were eligible for refills, and for patients that lived over 45 minutes away from his pharmacy—all of which are indicative of illegal diversion activity.”
“Chuck Kohlerman used pharmacy patrons as pawns in his money-making scheme, soon adding phony prescriptions into the mix,” said Tara A. McMahon, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia Division. “All told, his litany of fraudulent claims netted nearly $2 million to which he wasn’t entitled. Add to that his reckless dispensing of addictive opioids, and it’s clear that the guiding principle here was greed. One of these days, medical professionals will get the message that health care fraud is a high priority for the FBI and we’re working every day to hold perpetrators accountable.”
“Kohlerman chose himself over his patients,” said Special Agent in Charge Maureen R. Dixon, Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG). “HHS-OIG and our law enforcement partners will continue to investigate and prosecute individuals who chose to enrich themselves at the expense of patients.”
The case was investigated by the Office of Personnel Management, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the U.S. Marshals, and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Paul J. Koob and Trial Attorney Adam G. Yoffie. Deputy Chief for Affirmative Litigation Charlene Keller Fullmer of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is handling the parallel civil case.
The former CEO of garbage hauler Rizzo Environmental Services (RES), Charles B. “Chuck” Rizzo, 46, of Bloomfield Hills, was sentenced to 66 months in prison and ordered to pay $4 million in forfeiture based on his convictions for conspiring to commit bribery and wire fraud, in connection with millions of dollars of municipal garbage contracts in Macomb County and with the embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars from RES, United States Attorney Matthew Schneider announced.
Schneider was joined in the announcement by Timothy R. Slater, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Manny Muriel, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service.
Rizzo had been convicted of conspiring to pay bribes to Clinton Township Trustee Dean Reynolds and Macomb Township Trustee Clifford Freitas in order to secure and maintain favorable municipal garbage contracts for RES. Rizzo was convicted of giving Reynolds over $50,000 in cash bribes, plus over $50,000 in free legal services in order to get a 10-year garbage contract extension from Clinton Township worth over $15 million. Rizzo also had been convicted paying Freitas $7,500 for his assistance in securing the Macomb Township garbage contract and offering to pay Freitas a bribe of $35,000, plus a salary increase, if Freitas voted to put the RES garbage bill on the Macomb Township water bill, which would reduce RES’s cost of doing business.
Besides standing convicted of bribery conspiracy, Rizzo also was sentenced for conspiring to commit wire fraud. Rizzo had embezzled over $900,000 from RES while Rizzo served as the CEO of the company. At the time, RES’s owners included a New York private equity firm. The investors in the private equity firm included the Boy Scouts of America and the Montana and Arizona state employee pension funds. Rizzo’s fraud conspiracy took place between 2014 and 2016, and Rizzo used a variety of schemes to steal money from RES for his own enrichment. Rizzo used a fake legal settlement agreement, fraudulent consulting deals, cash kickbacks, shell companies, and methods to defraud the other owners of RES, who owned over 80% of the company, while Rizzo owned a small minority share. As one part of the embezzlement scheme, Rizzo received weekly envelopes containing thousands of dollars in cash kickbacks from a company that submitted fraudulently inflated invoices to RES. Through this one scheme alone, Rizzo stole over $500,000 in cash.
As part of his sentence, the Court ordered Rizzo to forfeit $4 million in criminal proceeds to the United States government. This money represents the proceeds of Rizzo’s criminal activity in securing municipal garbage contracts by paying bribes and embezzling money.
United States Attorney Schneider stated, “The Court’s sentence today demonstrates that bribe payers will face severe sanctions for spreading corruption through municipal government—penalties just as severe as those faced by the public officials who take the bribes.”
"Criminal actions, such as those committed by Charles B. Rizzo, have resulted in widespread harm to the trusting relationships among community members and their chosen leaders”, said Timothy R. Slater, Special Agent in Charge, Detroit FBI. “Safeguarding and protecting the public’s trust is not done alone. I would encourage anyone who has information about such criminal activity to call the FBI Public Corruption Task Force at (313) 965-2323”.
"With power comes great responsibility. When you willingly choose to use your power to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars and commit bribery, know that IRS-CI will be there to hold you accountable" said Manny Muriel, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Division. "IRS - CI Special Agents will comb through any rubbish to find evidence of a crime - in this case, shell companies and phony legal settlement agreements, especially one as egregious and offensive as this."
This case is part of the government’s wide-ranging corruption investigation centered in Macomb County, Michigan. The investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David A. Gardey, R. Michael Bullotta, and Adriana Dydell
Former Chesterfield Township Supervisor, Michael Lovelock, 59, of New Baltimore, Michigan, was sentenced to 24 months in prison today based on his conviction for conspiracy to commit bribery, announced U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider.
Schneider was joined in the announcement by Timothy R. Slater, Special Agent In Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Lovelock was convicted of conspiring with Rizzo Environmental CEO Charles B “Chuck” Rizzo to accept $30,000 in cash bribes from Rizzo between 2010 and 2016. The bribes were paid by Rizzo in exchange for favorable treatment from Lovelock in connection with Rizzo’s municipal garbage-hauling contract with the township.
Lovelock is one of twenty defendants charged in the government’s wide-ranging corruption investigation centered in Macomb County, Michigan. The sentence for Lovelock was reduced based on his cooperation with the government against Rizzo and others.
“Public officials who desecrate their elected office by selling out for bribes from contractors are among the most deserving of federal prosecution and will be held to account for each and every one of their corrupt misdeeds,” stated United States Attorney Matthew Schneider.
“Public officials who misuse their position of trust for personal gain, undermine the integrity of their office and deny honest services to the residents they purport to serve” said Timothy R. Slater, Special Agent in Charge, Detroit Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "The FBI led Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force will continue to aggressively investigate cases involving any federal, state, or local public officials who solicit and accept bribes in exchange for official acts and will work with our partners to ensure that those who violate their obligation to the public are held accountable.”
This case is part of the government’s wide-ranging corruption investigation centered in Macomb County, Michigan. The investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David A. Gardey, R. Michael Bullotta, Steven Cares, and Adriana Dydell.
The former CEO of garbage hauler Rizzo Environmental Services (RES), pleaded guilty today to conspiring to commit bribery and wire fraud, in connection with millions of dollars of municipal garbage contracts in Macomb County and with the embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars from RES, Acting United States Attorney Daniel L. Lemisch announced.
Lemisch was joined in the announcement by David P. Gelios, Special Agent In Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Manny Muriel, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service.
Charles B. “Chuck” Rizzo, 46, of Bloomfield Hills, pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Robert H. Cleland in Port Huron, Michigan.
Rizzo admitted at the plea hearing that he conspired to pay bribes to Clinton Township Trustee Dean Reynolds and Macomb Township Trustee Clifford Freitas in order to secure and maintain favorable municipal garbage contracts for RES. Rizzo admitted giving Reynolds over $50,000 in cash bribes, plus free legal services in order to get a garbage contract extension from Clinton Township. He also admitted to offering to pay Freitas a bribe of $35,000, plus a salary increase, if Freitas voted to put the RES garbage bill on the Macomb Township water bill, which would reduce RES’s cost of doing business.
Besides pleading guilty to bribery, Rizzo also pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud. Rizzo admitted to embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from RES while Rizzo served as the CEO of the company. The fraud conspiracy took place between 2014 and 2016, when the majority owner of RES was a New York based private equity firm. During the conspiracy, Rizzo used a variety of schemes to steal money from RES for his own enrichment. Rizzo used a fake legal settlement agreement, fraudulent consulting deals, cash kickbacks, shell companies, and methods to defraud the other owners of RES, who owned over 80% of the company, while Rizzo owned a small minority share. As one part of the embezzlement scheme, Rizzo received weekly envelopes containing thousands of dollars in cash kickbacks from a company that submitted fraudulently inflated invoices to RES.
The Rule 11 Plea Agreement provides that the sentencing guideline range that Rizzo faces at sentencing based on his criminal activity is 168-210 months, with a statutory maximum of ten years in prison.
As part of the plea today, Rizzo agreed to forfeit $4 million to the United States government. This money represents the proceeds of Rizzo’s criminal activity in securing municipal garbage contracts by paying bribes and embezzling money.
Each of the two conspiracy charges carries a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. Because of the charges to which he pleaded guilty, Rizzo faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.
Acting United States Attorney Lemisch said, “The plea today demonstrates that bribe payers face significant penalties for spreading corruption through municipal government—penalties just as severe as those faced by the public officials who take the bribes.”
"The actions of Mr. Rizzo and others implicated in this wide ranging Macomb County corruption investigation erodes our trust and confidence in public officials" said David P. Gelios, Special Agent in Charge, Detroit Division of the FBI. "Today's guilty plea represents another significant step towards reinforcing to the public that honest government is essential to our way of life and the FBI and our partners will continue to prioritize the prosecution of both corrupt elected officials and those that would endeavor to bribe them."
“IRS - Criminal Investigation is working vigorously with our partners in the Macomb County corruption investigation,” said Special Agent in Charge Manny Muriel, IRS- Criminal Investigation. “The investigators sifted through volumes of evidence to unravel the multiple and complex schemes which this group employed to conceal the scent of their illegal activity. Today’s guilty plea is the result of the diligent work of the investigation team to hold those involved accountable.”
This case is part of the government’s wide-ranging corruption investigation centered in Macomb County, Michigan. The investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David A. Gardey, R. Michael Bullotta, and Adriana Dydell.
The former CEO of garbage hauler Rizzo Environmental Services (RES), Charles B. “Chuck” Rizzo, 46, of Bloomfield Hills, was indicted today on five counts of bribery and three counts of conspiracy to commit bribery, in connection with garbage contracts in Clinton, Macomb, and Chesterfield townships, Acting United States Attorney Daniel L. Lemisch announced.
Lemisch was joined in the announcement by David P. Gelios, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Manny Muriel, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service.
Also charged with bribery is towing company owner Gasper Fiore, 56, of Grosse Pointe Shores. The superseding indictment charges Fiore and former Clinton Township trustee Dean Reynolds, 50, of Clinton Township, with multiple counts of bribery and conspiring to commit bribery in order to secure a towing contract with Clinton Township sought by Fiore. In March 2016, Fiore paid a $4,000 cash bribe to Reynolds, and then another $3,000 in cash to Reynolds in May 2016. The bribes were paid by Fiore to Reynolds through Charles B. Rizzo.
The superseding indictment also charges Charles B. Rizzo and Fiore, as well as Rizzo’s father, Charles P. Rizzo, 70, of New Baltimore, and Derrick Hicks, 47, of Bloomfield Hills, with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. In addition, Charles P. Rizzo is charged with seven counts of mail and wire fraud, and his son, Charles B. Rizzo, is charged with twelve counts of mail and wire fraud. The fraud charges are based on the defendants’ conspiracy involving at least ten different schemes to steal money from RES between 2013 and 2016, a time when the majority owner of RES was a New York based private equity firm. At the time, Charles B. Rizzo, Charles P. Rizzo, Fiore, Hicks, and others schemed to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from RES using a fake legal settlement agreement, fraudulent consulting deals, cash kickbacks, shell companies, and the stealing of money to pay for part of the construction costs of Charles B. Rizzo’s Bloomfield Township mansion. Charles B. Rizzo and other conspirators then used some of the stolen money to pay bribes to public officials in order to maintain and secure additional municipal garbage contracts. In conducting the embezzlement scheme, Charles B. Rizzo referred to the money embezzled and stolen from RES as “OPM”—“other people’s money.” The indictment contains forfeiture provisions regarding more than $4 million that has thus far been seized by the government in the investigation, as well as seeking the forfeiture of the proceeds of the sale of the Rizzos’ minority interest in RES.
The superseding indictment also adds new bribery charges against Reynolds in connection with another municipality. indictment alleges that Reynolds conspired to commit bribery with former New Haven trustee Brett Harris, 57, of New Haven. According to the indictment, Reynolds introduced Harris to an individual who, unbeknownst to Reynolds and Harris, was an undercover federal agent. Reynolds introduced Harris as a politician willing to take bribes. undercover agent proceeded to pay Harris $9,000 in cash bribes in return for Harris’ promise to help secure a garbage contract with New Haven.
Furthermore, the superseding indictment charges Reynolds with accepting multiple bribes from engineering contractor, Paulin Modi. In this regard, Reynolds took an $8,000 bribe from Modi in 2009 and another $8,000 bribe from Modi in 2013 in connection with securing the engineering contract for Modi for Clinton Township.
Each bribery charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. of the mail and wire fraud counts carry a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The bribery conspiracy counts carry a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.
Acting United States Attorney Lemisch said: “This indictment demonstrates our commitment to bring to justice all participants in bribery schemes, including both the corrupt public officials and the bribe payers seeking to profit from public contracts. Our citizens are entitled to decisions based on the best interests of the public, not the best interests of politicians who accept bribes and bribe-paying contractors.”
"The public understandably is skeptical when public officials and municipal contractors in southeast Michigan conspire with one another to line their own pockets and illegally scheme to obtain advantages over their competitors," said Special Agent in Charge David P. Gelios, Detroit Division of the FBI. "Today's indictments reflect the FBI's continued resolve to root out public corruption and to work with honest community leaders to restore the public's trust in their government officials and institutions. Unfortunately, though, corrupt activity such as this continues. Until that is no longer the case, I would urge anyone who has information about this case or other allegations of corruption to call the FBI Public Corruption Task Force at (313) 965-2323."
“Bribery regardless of how you disguise it, is illegal”, stated Special Agent in Charge Manny Muriel for IRS Criminal Investigation. “Parties who profit and those who pay the bribe will be charged and held accountable for breaking the law. All Americans have a duty to pay their fair share in taxes. IRS – Criminal investigation helps to ensure that all Americans including public officials and contractors, are held to the same standards.”
This case is part of the government’s wide-ranging corruption investigation centered in Macomb County, Michigan. The investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David A. Gardey and R. Michael Bullotta.
An indictment is only a charging document and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
DETROIT – Former Macomb County Commissioner of Public Works Anthony Marrocco was sentenced to three months in prison and fourteen months of home confinement for attempted extortion by withholding county permits from businessmen who refused to contribute to Marrocco’s campaign accounts, United States Attorney Dawn N. Ison announced today.
Ison was joined in the announcement by James Tarasca, Special Agent in Charge of the Detroit Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Charles Miller, the Acting Special Agent in Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation Detroit Field Office.
Marrocco, 73, of Ray Township, Michigan, was sentenced to prison by United States District Judge Robert H. Cleland at the Port Huron, Michigan Federal Courthouse. Marrocco also placed on supervised release for a period of two years with the first fourteen months to be served under home confinement, without access to the internet, sports, movies, or other entertainment. In addition, Marrocco was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine.
Marrocco served as the Commissioner of Public Works from 1993 through 2016. In September 2022, Marrocco pleaded guilty to Count Three of the Indictment charging him with attempted extortion of a Macomb County developer in April 2016. Marrocco admitted that he pressured the developer to spend thousands of dollars to purchase tickets to one of Marrocco’s fundraisers. Marrocco threatened to delay or withhold approval of county permits sought by the developer if he did not purchase additional tickets to Marrocco’s political fundraiser.
The extortion conviction of Marrocco is the final and most significant development in federal law enforcement’s years-long effort to aggressively investigate and prosecute corruption in Macomb County. Thus far in this effort, some twenty-two public officials and bribe-paying businessmen have been charged and convicted in connection with the Macomb County corruption probe, including three defendants convicted after jury trials, as well as the conviction and imprisonment of elected Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith.
The Macomb County investigation centered on corruption in suburban Detroit communities and in the City of Detroit in garbage-hauling, towing, and engineering contracts involving tens of millions of dollars. The investigation revealed that for years the owners of garbage-hauling, towing, and engineering companies were bribing elected public officials and police officers in order to secure lucrative contracts. Targets convicted in the prosecution included Chuck Rizzo, the CEO and multi-millionaire owner of one of the largest garbage-hauling companies in Michigan, Gasper Fiore, the CEO and multi-millionaire owner of the largest towing company in Michigan, and a Fazal Khan, the millionaire owner of an engineering consulting services firm. The investigation also uncovered significant wire fraud and embezzlement schemes whereby Rizzo and his father were stealing millions from company investors and the engineering partner was stealing a million dollars from his fellow partners. The investigation resulted in the conviction of nine public officials, including Detroit’s Deputy Chief of Police, eight elected officials, and the former Chief Engineer of Macomb County, Michigan. In total, the prosecution resulted in twenty-two criminal convictions of bribe payers and public officials. Significant events in the course of the investigation included (1) the conviction at trial in June 2018 of Clinton Township Trustee Dean Reynolds, for four bribery conspiracies and ten counts of bribery, involving the corruption of over $30 million worth of township contracts; (2) the 2021 conviction of elected and long-time Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith for obstruction of justice in connection with his embezzlement from his own campaign fund; and (3) the 2022 conviction of Marrocco for extortion.
United States Attorney Ison said, “Marrocco had exercised unchecked power over people just trying to do business in Macomb County. Although we are disappointed in the length of the Court’s sentence, through Marrocco’s conviction for extortion, he will no longer be able to demand obedience and respect from the district’s citizens.”
"Today, Mr. Marrocco has been held responsible for his part in a pervasive pattern of corruption and illegal practices by public officials in Macomb County," said James A. Tarasca, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Michigan. "Public corruption is the FBI's number one criminal investigative priority because a lack of faith in government undermines our institutions, and we will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to address this issue until honest and responsible government is the order of the day in Macomb County and throughout the State of Michigan."
“Public officials, whether elected or appointed, hold positions of trust in the eyes of the public. Today’s sentence sends a clear message that when public officials commit crimes, they will be held accountable for that broken trust,” said Charles Miller, the Acting Special Agent in Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation Detroit Field Office. "IRS-CI will continue to provide financial investigative expertise, as we work with our law enforcement partners to enforce the law and ensure public trust.”
The investigation in this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Steven Cares and Robert Moran.
This afternoon, a federal jury convicted Dean Reynolds, a former Trustee of Clinton Township, on all fourteen counts of bribery and bribery conspiracy United States Attorney Matthew Schneider announced today.
Schneider was joined in the announcement by Special Agent in Charge Timothy R. Slater of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Manny Muriel, Special Agent in Charge of the Internal Revenue Service.
The jury deliberated for slightly over an hour before reaching its guilty verdicts following a six-day long trial that began on June 13, 2018. The Court remanded Reynolds into custody following entry of the verdicts.
During the trial, the evidence showed that Reynolds demanded and took over $150,000 in bribes in four separate bribery conspiracies involving four different government contracts. The bribes included over $75,000 in cash, $50,000 in free legal services for Reynolds’ divorce, and an all-expenses paid trip to Disney World, including an eight-night stay in a deluxe-level room costing over $600 per night. The jury found that Reynolds demanded bribes in connection with the Clinton Township garbage-hauling contract worth over $16 million, the township engineering contract worth over $500,000 per year, and the township towing contract. In addition, the jury convicted Reynolds of conspiring to pay bribes to former New Haven, Michigan Trustee Brett Harris and to corrupt the garbage contract for New Haven. Reynolds was convicted of taking multiple bribes from convicted garbage executive Chuck Rizzo, from Paulin Modi, a former managing partner of Giffels Webster Engineering, who was also convicted of bribery, and from Gasper Fiore, the owner of multiple towing companies in southeast Michigan, who was also previously convicted of bribery conspiracy.
United States Attorney Schneider said, “Today’s verdict shows both our intolerance for corrupt public officials in Metro Detroit, and the community’s willingness to find them guilty after hearing the evidence. The verdict is a victory for honest government and a blow to those officials who try to subvert it for their own selfish, greedy ends.”
"The pursuit of public officials who abuse their authority for personal gain is one of the highest priorities for the FBI," stated Timothy R. Slater, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Detroit Field Office. "We are committed to rooting out corruption and graft in southeast Michigan to ensure that our communities get the honest and quality public representation that they deserve."
Based on the jury’s guilty verdicts for conspiring to commit bribery and taking bribes, Reynolds faces a maximum of five years in prison on each of the four bribery conspiracy charges and a fine of up to $250,000. In addition, Reynolds also faces a maximum of ten years in prison and a fine of $250,000 on each of his ten convictions for bribery. A preliminary calculation of the federal sentencing guidelines for Reynolds indicates that he faces a total combined sentencing guideline range of over twenty years in prison.
This case is part of the government’s wide-ranging corruption investigation centered in Macomb County, Michigan. Reynolds was the sixteenth individual convicted as part of this investigation, including public officials, contractors, and other co-conspirators.
The investigation of this case was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys R. Michael Bullotta, David A. Gardey, and Adriana Dydell
COLUMBUS, Ohio – A federal grand jury has charged 18 individuals in conspiracies to distribute kilogram quantities of heroin, launder money back to Mexico and run a fake immigration identification business.
The superseding indictment was returned here yesterday and 13 of the defendants were arrested in Central Ohio today. Custody will be sought for five defendants in California.
According to the 16-count indictment, Diego Ernesto Castaneda-Garcia was allegedly the leader of a drug trafficking organization that received imported heroin from Mexico, repackaged it into user quantities and sold it to heroin users in and around Central Ohio.
It was further a part of the alleged drug conspiracy that defendants would arrange for workers to be smuggled into the United States from Mexico for arrival in Central Ohio to distribute heroin.
Co-conspirators allegedly packaged heroin into foil balls called “fechas” – which roughly translates to “coins” in English – containing 1/10th of a gram of narcotics. Heroin was sold to users in public parking lots by “runners” who charged $100 for a group of 15 coins.
The indictment details that one co-conspirator would act as a dispatcher taking calls and coordinating runners. Other defendants would arrange for apartments to rent for the runners to live in and purchase vehicles for runners. Other co-conspirators would create fake identification documents for the workers, including drivers licenses, permanent resident alien cards and Social Security cards. It was also a part of the alleged drug conspiracy that individuals would register automobiles and license tags in false names or in the name of a U.S. citizen in order to avoid the attention of law enforcement.
Defendants allegedly wired money on multiple occasions from storefronts in Columbus to Nayarit, Mexico.
“Special Agents with HSI and our local, state and federal partners have once again taken down a sophisticated international drug trafficking operation, suspected of untold harm in our community,” said Vance Callander, special agent in charge of HSI for Michigan and Ohio. “This organization went to great lengths to conceal their activities from law enforcement. However, today’s arrests demonstrate that HSI and our partners will be unyielding in our efforts to take down those who seek to profit from poisoning our community.”
According to the indictment, a group associated with the drug traffickers was involved in the business of creating fake identification documents. This was for members of the drug trafficking group as well as members of the public who were purchasing driver’s licenses, lawful permanent resident cards and U.S. Social Security cards. The business was called “Chilango’s Perfumes” and perfumes was allegedly used as a code word for fake documents. Customers allegedly paid $120 for a “full set” – a Social Security card and resident alien card.
For example, Julia Martinez-Alvarez received a phone call from a Spanish-speaking female on August 15 who said, “I was calling you because I wanted perfume.”
Martinez-Alvarez allegedly responded, “Of course. To place your order, I need a frontal photo, with the hair up, no earrings, no glasses. Send me the photo, name, date of birth and nationality…”
Those charged include:
Name
Also Known As
Victor Daniel Torres-Lopez
Diego Ernesto Castaneda-Garcia
Neto, Mariachi, El Musican, Jorge Alonso Casillas-Guillen, Jose Alberto Carbajal, Sergio Castaneda-Garcia, Jose Salas Carbajal, Oscar Silva-Santiago
Angel Moises Castaneda-Garcia
Moi, Moises
Jose Narciso Acuna-Zepeda
Chucky
Javier Eduardo Acuna-Zepeda
Lalo, Guaranieve, Huijolo
Omar Fernando Chavez-Andrade
Contador
Julia Martinez-Alvarez
Sandra Rodriguez-Rosa, Sandra Yvette Rodrigruez-Rosa, Julie Martinez-Albarado, Lusero Gonzales, Lori Michelle Willet, Emma Gonzalez
Jennifer Esmeralda Rodriguez-Martinez
Tonie Michelle Rondrekia Scott
Michael P. Uccello
Serena Esclante
Delander Edward Moore, Jr.
Luis Enrique Diaz-Castillo
Chaz A. Holland
Tesla M Yant
Juan Manuel Alfaro-Alvarez
Manuel
Adriana Gabriela Salazar-Martinez
Maria Esther Rosario
Maria Jorge, Dember O. Hernandez, Pablo Tadeo Salgado, Maria Gabriela Ramos Martinez
Charged in heroin conspiracy punishable by up to life in prison.
Conspiring to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin is a federal crime punishable by up to life prison. Laundering and conspiring to launder money, conspiring to create and creating fraudulent identification documents are each crimes punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
U.S. Attorney Glassman commended the cooperation of federal, state and local law enforcement, both in investigating this case and executing multiple arrests today.
Those agencies include:
U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
Delaware County Sheriff’s Office
Ohio Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigations (BCI)
IRS Criminal Investigation
Dublin Police Department
Ohio State Highway Patrol
Westerville Police Department
Delaware Police Department
Ohio National Guard Counter Drug Task Force
U.S. Border Patrol
United States Marshals Service
Columbus Division of Police
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Unit
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
Assistant United States Attorneys Timothy D. Prichard and Special Assistant United States Attorney Roger Dinh are prosecuting the case.
An indictment merely contains allegations, and defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
COLUMBUS, Ohio – United States Attorneys Benjamin C. Glassman and Justin E. Herdman announced charges brought in eight separate Social Security fraud and other benefits cases statewide.
The cases are part of the national Social Security Administration (SSA) Fraud Prosecution Project, a collaboration with SSA’s Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Justice. From early 2016 to date, Special Assistant United States Attorneys around the country have secured over 300 federal convictions, leading to judicial orders for more than $34 million in restitution to SSA and other agencies.
In Ohio, eight individuals were charged this month with stealing Social Security and other retirement benefits totaling more than $796,000.
“Taking Social Security benefits intended for another is a theft from all of us,” U.S. Attorney Glassman said. “Through our partnership with the Social Security Administration, the Southern District of Ohio is cracking down on this fraud as never before.”
The defendants illegally collected Social Security benefits that were paid to a deceased relative or friend in seven of the eight cases. In one case, the defendant stole the identity of a living 65-year-old doctor and used it to collect the doctor’s Social Security benefits.
In the Southern District of Ohio, Special Assistant United States Attorney Timothy Landry is prosecuting five cases.
Jesse Larry, 71, of Columbus, Curtis Joash, 73, of Cincinnati and Dolores Stacy, 70, of Hamilton were each charged by criminal complaint for allegedly illegally collecting Social Security benefits paid to their respective mothers after their deaths. Each defendant was a co-signatory on their mother’s savings or checking account, allowing them to withdraw the Social Security money each month.
Larry collected $273,000 in benefits that were paid to his mother after she died in 1993, Joash collected nearly $188,000 since his mother’s death in 1990 and Stacy collected nearly $121,000 since her mother died in 2005.
Era Jenkinson, 42, of Columbus, was also charged by criminal complaint for allegedly illegally collected nearly $29,000 in Social Security benefits that were paid to her for the benefit of another person.
Jenkinson had been serving as the person’s representative payee, and therefore was responsible for notifying Social Security when the person died in 2015. Instead, it is alleged that Jenkinson spent the benefits on her own expenses after the person died. In April 2017, Jenkinson allegedly had a friend pose as the deceased person in a telephone call with a Social Security employee in an attempt to convince Social Security that the person was still alive.
Chucky Scott, 25, of Columbus, was charged by a Bill of Information. Scott is scheduled to plead guilty in U.S. District Court next week, and, according to the plea agreement, filed a claim for retirement benefits using the identity of a 65-year-old doctor, but using Scott’s own address to receive the payments. In this manner, Scott illegally collected approximately $14,500 in Social Security benefits.
In the Northern District of Ohio, Special Assistant United States Attorney Lisa J. Sanniti indicted three cases yesterday.
Norman C. Thompson, III, 47, of Chagrin Falls, is charged for allegedly wrongfully converted his deceased mother’s Title II disability benefits. Every month after his mother’s death, defendant intercepted checks from the Social Security Administration issued to his mother. Thompson signed his mother’s name and his own to endorse and deposit the checks, causing a total loss of approximately $39,000.
From approximately November 2011 through May 2017, James C. Bohanon, Jr., 69, of Cleveland, allegedly wrongfully received and converted to his own use approximately $48,000 from his deceased wife’s Supplemental Security Income. In addition, he received financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and was obligated to report his income accurately to his residential property management each year. Bohanon concealed his receipt of his deceased wife’s Social Security benefits from HUD, and, as a result, received approximately $38,500 in Housing Assistance Payments to which he was not entitled.
Alturik R. Plummer, 51, of University Heights, allegedly wrongfully converted his deceased grandmother’s Title II Retirement Insurance benefits from approximately August 2013 through October 2016, causing a loss of approximately $45,000.
“These defendants stole tens of thousands of dollars from taxpayers,” said Justin E. Herdman, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. “We will continue to work with all our law enforcement partners to root out fraud, including those who steal from Social Security.”
Through its Fraud Prosecution Project, the Department of Justice and SSA pool legal resources to prosecute individuals who defraud Social Security programs. SSA’s Office of the General Counsel currently employs agency attorneys to serve as Special Assistant United States Attorneys in 13 United States Attorney Offices, two of which are located in the Southern and Northern Districts of Ohio, to lead these prosecution efforts.
For more information on SSA’s Fraud Prosecution Project and the agency’s other anti-fraud efforts, please visit https://www.ssa.gov/antifraudfacts/.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Fifteen Kansas City, Mo., area residents have been indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in a conspiracy to distribute PCP and for illegally possessing firearms.
Russell L. Spencer II, also known as “Russ,” 44, Charles N. Hill, also known as “Chuck Wagon,” 42, Kessa R. Gines, 45, Charles J. Wiley, 44, Raven Hicks, 44, Dorothea L. Cain, also known as “Dea,” 52, Chaitez A. Sexton, also known as “Choddy,” 47, Bobby Graves III, 43, Robert E. Ridley, 46, Raymond D. Stewart, 31, Jabari M. Craddock, 28, Aaron J. Schultz, also known as “Tink,” 45, Austin W. Smith, 57, and Jimmy L. Abron, 41, all of Kansas City, Mo.; and Ra’Shaan R.Wilson, also known as “Rah Rah,” 28, of Belton, Mo., were charged in a 13-count indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Mo., on Tuesday, Sept. 26. That indictment was unsealed and made public today following the arrests of all 15 defendants.
The federal indictment alleges that each of the 15 defendants participated in a conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of PCP in Jackson County, Mo., from Oct. 15, 2021, to Sept. 16, 2023.
In addition to the drug-trafficking conspiracy, Cain is charged with one count of possessing PCP with the intent to distribute, one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Cain allegedly possessed a Taurus 9mm semi-automatic handgun on March 24, 2023. Under federal law, it is illegal for anyone who has been convicted of a felony to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. Cain has a prior federal felony conviction for conspiracy to distribute PCP, two prior felony convictions for possession of a controlled substance, two prior felony convictions for stealing, and prior felony convictions for robbery, distributing or manufacturing a controlled substances,
In addition to the drug-trafficking conspiracy, Sexton and Graves are charged together with one count of possessing fentanyl with the intent to distribute, one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime and one count of being felons in possession of a firearm. Sexton and Graves allegedly possessed a Kimber .45-caliber semi-automatic handgun and a Taurus 9mm semi-automatic handgun on Aug. 17, 2022. Sexton has a prior federal felony conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, two prior convictions for distributing a controlled substance near a school, and a prior felony conviction for burglary. Graves has a prior federal felony conviction for possessing crack cocaine with the intent to distribute, two prior felony convictions for trafficking in drugs and a prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
In addition to the drug-trafficking conspiracy, Ridley is charged with one count of possessing PCP with the intent to distribute.
In addition to the drug-trafficking conspiracy, Stewart is charged with one count of possessing PCP with the intent to distribute and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Stewart allegedly possessed a Taurus 9mm semi-automatic handgun on July 6, 2023.
In addition to the drug-trafficking conspiracy, Craddock is charged with one count of possessing PCP with the intent to distribute and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Craddock allegedly possessed a Heckler & Koch 9mm semi-automatic handgun on July 6, 2023.
In addition to the drug-trafficking conspiracy, Smith is charged with one count of possessing PCP with the intent to distribute.
The federal indictment also includes a forfeiture allegation, which would require the defendants to forfeit to the government a residential property, two vehicles, and a money judgment in the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of their participation in the drug-trafficking conspiracy.
The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.
This case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Brandon Gibson. It was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department.
Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force
This case is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) operation. 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 at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Three leaders and six members of a confederation of street gangs in the Kansas City metropolitan area have been indicted by a federal grand jury for their roles in an ongoing criminal enterprise that involved armed violence, including a murder conspiracy and drive-by shootings, and illegal drug trafficking.
Steven K. Lee, also known as “Bizzle” and “SB,” 38, Charles V. Williams, also known as “Cheese” and “Chucky D,” 35, Travis L. Cook, also known as “Trav,” 30, Richard B. Johnson, also known as “Scritch” and “Rich,” 24, Deion D. Alford, also known as “Wommy,” 23, Ewon R. Kelley, also known as “Won,” 33, Myreku L. Frazier, also known as “Rekus,” 30, Anthony D. Hunter, also known as “Dee,” 25, and Jacequin Boswell, also known as “Nunu” and “Noodles,” 30, were charged in a six-count indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Mo., on Aug. 17, 2023. That indictment was unsealed and made public today upon the arrests and initial court appearances of three of the defendants.
Lee, Williams, Cook, Kelley, and Hunter were all arrested in an operation on Thursday, August 24, 2023. Johnson and Alford are already in custody in connection with other charges. The operation involved more than 140 law enforcement officers from multiple local and federal agencies and searches of 16 residences associated with gang members. During the searches and arrests, law enforcement seized approximately 27 firearms, two machineguns, 1,069 rounds of ammunition, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, marijuana, and bulk cash associated with the gangs. Additional seizures are still in the process of being logged into evidence.
According to the indictment, seven of the defendants—Lee, Johnson, Alford, Kelley, Frazier, Hunter, and Boswell—were members of an organized criminal enterprise, a gang called the Park Side Greasies, which is centered around the intersection of 33rd Street and Park Avenue in Kansas City, Mo. Members of Park Side Greasies allegedly engaged in acts of violence, including murder, conspiracy to murder, armed assault and robbery, and drug trafficking.
According to the indictment, Lee is the leader of Park Side Greasies. Williams leads Click Clack Gang and Cook leads South Benton Gang. Members of the three gangs maintain regular communication and frequently cooperate for the purpose of illegal drug trafficking and violent crimes, creating a confederation of gangs known as South Park Click. The gang alliance was memorialized in a 2013 song entitled “For Da 30’s,” the indictment says, which includes the verse “South Park Click. That’s South Benton, Park, and Click Clack. If somebody got shot, close your mouth – we probably did that. McDonald’s or Wendy’s, we don’t give a (expletive). You won’t move until the paramedics pick you up.”
Leaders, members, and associates of the criminal enterprise promoted a climate of fear in the community through repeated waves of gunfire, assaults, and destruction of property, among other crimes of violence and intimidation, the indictment says. They used and threatened to use physical violence to suppress challenges from rival criminals and others who threatened the enterprise. They enhanced their reputation for violence by killing, attempting to kill, and otherwise violently confronting people who challenged them. They enriched themselves, and funded the operations of the criminal enterprise, with the proceeds of illegal drug trafficking, robbery, and burglary.
The indictment charges all nine of the defendants in one count of participating in a racketeering conspiracy since at least Jan. 1, 2008. They allegedly engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including multiple acts and threats of murder, robbery, and drug trafficking as part of the criminal enterprise.
The indictment charges all nine of the defendants in one count of participating in a drug-trafficking conspiracy since at least Jan. 1, 2008. They allegedly conspired to distribute cocaine, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin, PCP, alprazolam, oxycodone, and marijuana.
The indictment charges Lee, Johnson, Alford, Kelley, Hunter, and Boswell in one count of participating in a murder conspiracy since at least Dec. 8, 2017, in aid of the racketeering enterprise. Lee allegedly issued a contract for the murder of a rival gang member. Boswell located and attempted to shoot the victim in the area of 34th Street in Kansas City, Mo., but the victim successfully fled. Hunter shot at the victim on Dec. 30, 2018, reporting to Lee that they had “exchanged metal.” Kelley located the victim on Jan. 1, 2019, but was unable to execute the contract because too many people were around.
On Jan. 28, 2021, Johnson allegedly fired on multiple vehicles, believing them to be occupied by rivals, causing an injury to an uninvolved citizen and damaging property. Johnson is charged with one count of aiding and abetting another person to attempt to murder and to assault another person with a dangerous weapon, a Glock 9mm handgun. Johnson is also charged with one count of using a firearm during a crime of violence and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Byron H. Black and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie C. Bradshaw. It was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department.
KC Metro Strike Force
This prosecution was brought as a part of the Department of Justice’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (“OCDETF”) Co-located Strike Forces Initiative, which provides for the establishment of permanent multi-agency task force teams that work side-by-side in the same location. This co-located model enables agents from different agencies to collaborate on intelligence-driven, multi-jurisdictional operations against a continuum of priority targets and their affiliate illicit financial networks. These prosecutor-led co-located Strike Forces capitalize on the synergy created through the long-term relationships that can be forged by agents, analysts, and prosecutors who remain together over time, and they epitomize the model that has proven most effective in combating organized crime. The principal mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle the most serious drug trafficking organizations, transnational criminal organizations, and money laundering organizations that present a significant threat to the public safety, economic, or national security of the United States.
United States Attorneys Justin E. Herdman and Benjamin C. Glassman announced charges brought in eight separate Social Security fraud and other benefits cases statewide.
The cases are part of the national Social Security Administration (SSA) Fraud Prosecution Project, a collaboration with SSA’s Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Justice. From early 2016 to date, Special Assistant United States Attorneys around the country have secured over 300 federal convictions, leading to judicial orders for more than $34 million in restitution to SSA and other agencies.
In Ohio, eight individuals were charged this month with stealing Social Security and other retirement benefits totaling more than $796,000. The defendants illegally collected Social Security benefits that were paid to a deceased relative or friend in seven of the eight cases. In one case, the defendant stole the identity of a living 65-year-old doctor and used it to collect the doctor’s Social Security benefits.
In the Northern District of Ohio, Special Assistant United States Attorney Lisa J. Sanniti indicted three cases.
Norman C. Thompson, III, 47, of Chagrin Falls, is charged for allegedly wrongfully converted his deceased mother’s Title II disability benefits. Every month after his mother’s death, defendant intercepted checks from the Social Security Administration issued to his mother. Thompson signed his mother’s name and his own to endorse and deposit the checks, causing a total loss of approximately $39,000.
From approximately November 2011 through May 2017, James C. Bohanon, Jr., 69, of Cleveland, allegedly wrongfully received and converted to his own use approximately $48,000 from his deceased wife’s Supplemental Security Income. In addition, he received financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and was obligated to report his income accurately to his residential property management each year. Bohanon concealed his receipt of his deceased wife’s Social Security benefits from HUD, and, as a result, received approximately $38,500 in Housing Assistance Payments to which he was not entitled.
Alturik R. Plummer, 51, of University Heights, allegedly wrongfully converted his deceased grandmother’s Title II Retirement Insurance benefits from approximately August 2013 through October 2016, causing a loss of approximately $45,000.
“These defendants stole tens of thousands of dollars from taxpayers,” said Herdman, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. “We will continue to work with all our law enforcement partners to root out fraud, including those who steal from Social Security.”
In the Southern District of Ohio, Special Assistant United States Attorney Timothy Landry is prosecuting five cases.
Jesse Larry, 71, of Columbus, Curtis Joash, 73, of Cincinnati and Dolores Stacy, 70, of Hamilton were each charged by criminal complaint for allegedly illegally collecting Social Security benefits paid to their respective mothers after their deaths. Each defendant was a co-signatory on their mother’s savings or checking account, allowing them to withdraw the Social Security money each month.
Larry collected $273,000 in benefits that were paid to his mother after she died in 1993, Joash collected nearly $188,000 since his mother’s death in 1990 and Stacy collected nearly $121,000 since her mother died in 2005.
Era Jenkinson, 42, of Columbus, was also charged by criminal complaint for allegedly illegally collected nearly $29,000 in Social Security benefits that were paid to her for the benefit of another person.
Jenkinson had been serving as the person’s representative payee, and therefore was responsible for notifying Social Security when the person died in 2015. Instead, it is alleged that Jenkinson spent the benefits on her own expenses after the person died. In April 2017, Jenkinson allegedly had a friend pose as the deceased person in a telephone call with a Social Security employee in an attempt to convince Social Security that the person was still alive.
Chucky Scott, 25, of Columbus, was charged by a Bill of Information. Scott is scheduled to plead guilty in U.S. District Court next week, and, according to the plea agreement, filed a claim for retirement benefits using the identity of a 65-year-old doctor, but using Scott’s own address to receive the payments. In this manner, Scott illegally collected approximately $14,500 in Social Security benefits.
“Taking Social Security benefits intended for another is a theft from all of us,” said Glassman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. “Through our partnership with the Social Security Administration, the Southern District of Ohio is cracking down on this fraud as never before.”
Through its Fraud Prosecution Project, the Department of Justice and SSA pool legal resources to prosecute individuals who defraud Social Security programs. SSA’s Office of the General Counsel currently employs agency attorneys to serve as Special Assistant United States Attorneys in 13 United States Attorney Offices, two of which are located in the Southern and Northern Districts of Ohio, to lead these prosecution efforts.
For more information on SSA’s Fraud Prosecution Project and the agency’s other anti-fraud efforts, please visit https://www.ssa.gov/antifraudfacts/.
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – On September 20, 2023, a federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned an indictment charging 42 violent gang members from the municipality of Manatí with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, possession and distribution of controlled substances, and firearms violations, announced W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico. This investigation was led by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Puerto Rico Police Bureau (PRPB), Arecibo Strike Force, with the collaboration of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), the U.S. Marshals Service. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), CBP Air and Marine Operations, and the Barceloneta Police Department collaborated during the arrests.
“By arresting and prosecuting these defendants, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and its law enforcement partners are working to uphold the rule of law and punish violent offenders who terrorize our communities,” said U.S. Attorney Muldrow. “The Department of Justice is committed to dismantling criminal organizations, holding gang members accountable, and pursuing justice for victims.”
“For the last year, the residents in the Manatí area have been victims of violent crimes, going to bed and waking up to the sound of gunshots, tonight they will be able to rest,” said Rebecca González Ramos, Special Agent in Charge of HSI. “This organization is extremely violent; therefore this takedown included the activation of a total of 12 tactical teams and over 200 law enforcement officers from HSI San Juan and the U.S. Mainland along with federal, state, and local partners. This is a clear example of a multiagency collaboration; we were able to dismantle the new generation of a very violent drug trafficking organization that has been stealing the peace of these communities. Not anymore, HSI remains focused, determined, and steadfast to assure Puerto Rico’s public safety.”
The indictment alleges that from 2016, the drug trafficking organization called “Hasta los Marcian” (HLM) distributed heroin, fentanyl, cocaine base (commonly known as “crack”), cocaine, marihuana, Tramadol, and Clonazepam within 1,000 feet of the Enrique Zorrilla, Villa Evangelina, Vivamery, and Los Murales Public Housing Projects (PHPs), the Cerro Gandía Ward and the Morovis cemetery, all for significant financial gain and profit.
The goal of HLM was to maintain control of all the drug trafficking activities within the Manatí area by the use of force, threats, violence and intimidation. In preserving power and protecting territory, the members of HLM profited from the illegal distribution of narcotics including transportation and distribution of kilogram quantities of cocaine into the continental United States.
The investigation revealed that during the conspiracy the defendants and their co-conspirators participated in murders and shootings to further their drug trafficking operations. The defendants and their co-conspirators would sometimes use bullet proof vests to protect themselves when they participated in acts of violence. They modified firearms in order to convert them to automatic weapons (machineguns). On occasions, the co-conspirators legally purchased firearms and then sold them to members of the drug trafficking organization. Also, defendants and their co-conspirators would mail pieces of firearms or entire firearms from the continental United States to other members of the drug trafficking organization in Manatí.
The defendants acted in different roles to further the goals of the drug trafficking conspiracy, to wit: leaders, suppliers, drug point owners, enforcers, runners, sellers, lookouts, and facilitators. The members of the gang used force, violence, and intimidation to maintain control of the areas in which they operated. The defendants charged in the indictment are:
[1] Fabián López-Pino, a.k.a. “Fabi/Gordo/Panda”
[2] Michael Ángelo Reyes-Vázquez, a.k.a. “Chucky/Choky”
[31] Jorge Luis Santiago-Robles, a.k.a. “El Mono/El Mono De Cerro Gandía”
[32] Jeremy Nael Rodríguez-Ortega, a.k.a. “Jordan”
[33] Shaquille Emmanuel Rivera-De Jesús
[34] Jonathan Montano-Menéndez, a.k.a. “Ata”
[35] Kelvin Luis Núñez-Otero, a.k.a. “Colilla”
[36] Manuel Ángel Jr. Torres-Pérez, a.k.a. “Manolo”
[37] María De Los Ángeles Candelario-Rosa, a.k.a. “María Pasillo”
[38] Victor David Santos-Medina, a.k.a. “Davisito”
[39] Richard Vázquez-Aponte, a.k.a. “BTA”
[40] Jorge Luis Rivera-Rodríguez, a.k.a. “El Mono/El Mono De Zorrillas”
[41] Isaías Daniel Lugo-Nazario, a.k.a. “Panda”
[42] John Anthony Sánchez-Valentín, a.k.a. “Joshua Pauta/Pauta”
Thirty-Three (33) defendants are facing one charge of possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and fifteen (15) of those defendants are facing one count of possession of a machinegun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) and Chief of the Gang Section Alberto López-Rocafort; Deputy Chief of the Gang Section, AUSA Teresa Zapata-Valladares; AUSAs Corinne Cordero-Romo and Joseph Russell are in charge of the prosecution of the case. If convicted on the drug charges, the defendants face a minimum sentence of 10 years, and up to life in prison. If convicted of both the drug and firearms charges in Count Six, the defendants face a minimum sentence of 15 years, and up to life in prison. The defendants charged in Count Seven with possession of machineguns in furtherance of drug trafficking face a mandatory sentence of thirty years in prison to be served consecutive to any sentence imposed on the drug trafficking charges. All defendants are facing a narcotics forfeiture allegation of $31,347,400.
This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. 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.
An indictment is merely an allegation and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.