Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
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
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
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
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The 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 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 number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The number of days from the earlier of filing date or first appearance date to proceeding date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from proceeding date to disposition date
Format: N3
Description: The number of days from disposition date to sentencing date
Format: N3
Description: The code of the district office where the case was terminated
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant at the time the case was closed
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense that carried the most severe disposition and penalty under which the defendant was disposed
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with TTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with TTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The code indicating the nature or type of disposition associated with TTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The number of months a defendant was sentenced to prison under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A code indicating whether the prison sentence associated with TTITLE1 was concurrent or consecutive in relation to the other counts in the indictment or information or multiple counts of the same charge
Format: A4
Description: The number of months of probation imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N4
Description: A period of supervised release imposed upon a defendant under TTITLE1
Format: N3
Description: The fine imposed upon the defendant at sentencing under TTITLE1
Format: N8
Description: The total prison time for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and prison time was imposed
Format: N4
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Case Name: United States v. AOL e-mail account carthon3@aol.com, located at AOL, LLC, Legal Department - Custodian of Records, 22000 AOL Way, Dulles, Virginia 20166
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
RICHMOND, Va. – A Richmond man pleaded guilty today to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
According to court documents, on March 29, 2023, officers of the Richmond Police Department responded to a call of an active shooting near the intersection of Williamsburg Road and Government Road. Units arrived at that location within minutes of receiving the report and went to the parking lot of the Krispie’s Chicken restaurant, which was near the intersection where the shooting reportedly occurred. When they arrived, they saw Devon Martin, 30, wearing a hoodie which appeared to have a heavy, L-shaped object in the right pocket of the hoodie. As the officers approached Martin, he got into the passenger side of a vehicle. The officers ordered Martin to exit the vehicle and then conducted a pat down of his person. They found in Martin’s possession a Taurus, 9mm firearm in the pocket of his hoodie.
Martin was previously convicted in 2019 in the Eastern District of Virginia for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.
Martin is scheduled to be sentenced on January 11, 2024. He faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Jessica D. Aber, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Craig Kailimai, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division; and Rick Edwards, Chief of Richmond Police, made the announcement after U.S. Magistrate Judge Summer L. Speight accepted the plea.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen E. Anthony is prosecuting the case.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 3:23-cr-96.
HOUSTON – Two businessmen are now in custody for allegedly violating U.S. export control laws, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.As part of the overall investigation, a Houston company and its owner have also pleaded guilty to smuggling cutting-edge Artificial Intelligence technology out of the United States.“Operation Gatekeeper has exposed a sophisticated smuggling network that threatens our Nation’s security by funneling cutting-edge AI technology to those who would use it against American interests,” said Ganjei. “These chips are the building blocks of AI superiority and are integral to modern military applications. The country that controls these chips will control AI technology; the country that controls AI technology will control the future. The Southern District of Texas will aggressively prosecute anyone who attempts to compromise America’s technological edge.”“The United States has long emphasized the importance of innovation and is responsible for an incredible amount of cutting-edge technology, such as the advanced computer chips that make modern AI possible,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg. “This advantage isn’t free but rather the result of our engineers’ and scientists’ hard work and sacrifice. The National Security Division, along with our partners, will vigorously enforce our export-control laws and protect this edge.”Alan Hao Hsu aka Haochun Hsu, 43, Missouri City, and his company, Hao Global LLC, both pleaded guilty to smuggling and unlawful export activities Oct. 10.According to now unsealed court documents, between October 2024 and May 2025, Hsu and others knowingly exported and attempted to export at least $160 million worth of export-controlled Nvidia H100 and H200 Tensor Core graphic processing units (GPUs). The H100 and H200 are high-speed GPUs used for AI applications and high-performance computing. They are designed to process massive amounts of data, advancing generative AI and large language models, and accelerating scientific computing. The GPUs are used for both civilian and military applications. These chips are among the most advanced GPUs ever developed, and their export to the People’s Republic of China is strictly prohibited.Hsu and others falsified shipping paperwork, misclassifying the true nature of the goods and their recipients to conceal the ultimate destination of the GPUs. Hsu and Hao Global received more than $50 million in wire transfers that originated from the People’s Republic of China to help fund the scheme. The GPUs were ultimately shipped to the PRC, Hong Kong and other destinations in violation of U.S. export laws.Also charged in relation to the scheme are two PRC natives - Fanyue Gong aka Tom Gong, 43, a PRC citizen who resides in Brooklyn, New York, and Benlin Yuan, 58, a Canadian citizen who resides in Mississauga, Ontario. Law enforcement arrested Gong in New York Dec. 3, and Yuan in Sterling, Virgina, Nov. 28. Yuan is the CEO of a Sterling, Virginia, IT services company which is the U.S. subsidiary of a large PRC IT company based in Beijing, while Gong is the owner of a New York technology company.According to their charges, Gong and Yuan also independently conspired with employees of a Hong Kong-based logistics company and a China-based AI technology company to circumvent U.S. export controls.The criminal complaint against Gong alleges co-conspirators obtained Nvidia GPUs through straw purchasers and intermediaries, falsely indicating that the goods were for U.S. customers or customers in third countries that do not require a license to export. The GPUs were shipped to multiple U.S. warehouses where individuals who worked for Gong removed Nvidia labels and re-labelled the GPUs with the name “SANDKYAN” – a fake company – and then prepared the goods for export at his direction, according to the charges. The shipping and export paperwork for the GPUs allegedly misclassified the goods as generic computer parts. The charges allege co-conspirators then shipped the goods or attempted to do so to the PRC and Hong Kong in violation of U.S. laws.According to Yuan’s charges, he helped recruit and organize individuals to inspect the mislabeled GPUs on behalf of the Hong Kong logistics company. Yuan allegedly agreed to direct inspectors not to say the goods were destined for the PRC. The charges also allege Yuan directed discussions regarding crafting a story his company could use to get GPUs and other equipment released after federal law authorities detained it. Yuan allegedly engaged in several conversations about providing false information to U.S. authorities regarding the ultimate customer of the goods.Yuan is also alleged to have participated in and agreed to direct actions involving the handling and storage of another export of Nvidia GPUs on behalf of the Hong Kong logistics company.Hsu faces up to 10 years in federal prison at sentencing Feb. 18, while Hao Global LLC could be fined up to twice the gross gain from the offense and given a term of probation.If convicted, Yuan faces up to 20 years for conspiracy to violate the Export Control Reform Act. Gong is charged with conspiracy to smuggle goods from the United States and faces a maximum of 10 years.Hsu was permitted to remain on bond pending sentencing. Yuan and Gong are currently in custody pending further criminal proceedings.The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security - Office of Export Enforcement (Dallas Field Office), Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations – Dallas and FBI Field Offices in New York City and Washington D.C. conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Marck and Mark McIntyre are prosecuting the case along with Trial Attorneys Fatema Merchant and Yifei Zheng of DOJ’s National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.A criminal complaint is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.
HOUSTON - The five leaders and eight other co-conspirators have been sentenced for their roles in one of the largest synthetic cannabinoids distribution networks in the United States, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan Patrick. The sentences ranged from 140 months in federal prison for a leader to probation for an hourly wage clerk who sold the drugs.
The defendants were sentenced for their involvement in the manufacture, possession and distribution of synthetic cannabinoids commonly, but mistakenly, referred to as synthetic marijuana.
Today, U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ordered Khader Fahed Tanous, 52, of Manassas, Virginia, who distributed large amounts of synthetic cannabinoids to Houston area distributors, to 121 months imprisonment. Earlier this week, Judge Miller sentenced Muhammad Shariq Siddiqi, 48, of Sugar Land, to 140 months in prison. Siddiqi was a major manufacturer and distributor in the Houston area.
Also sentenced today was Ayisha Khurram, Siddiqi’s partner in manufacturing and distributing synthetic cannabinoids as was the de facto owner of the Smoke Zone Khalil Munier Khalil, 43, of Spring. The Smoke Zone was the most prolific distribution store front in the country for synthetic cannabinoids. Khalil was sentenced to a 135-month prison term while Khurram received a 95-month term of imprisonment.
Today, Judge Miller further sentenced Sayed Ali, 53, of Sugar Land; Abdalnour Izz, 33, of Houston; Steve Amira, 61, of Richmond; Mohammed Rafat Taha, 29, of Spring; and Frank Muratalla, 25, of Downey, California.
Siddiqi paid Ali to dilute, mix and apply the chemicals he supplied to the plant material. Izz delivered the drugs and collected payments for Tanous. Amira was the owner of Houston Beverage and a synthetic cannabinoids distributor. Ali received a sentence of 50 months, while Izz and Amira were each sentenced to 36 months.
Muratalla, who worked for out of state manufacturers of synthetic cannabinoids here in Houston, and Taha, a clerk at Smoke Zone, who sold packages of synthetic cannabinoids were both sentenced to four-year-terms of probation.
Also sentenced this week were other distributors and managers involved in the distribution of synthetic cannabinoids in the Houston area. Those included Salem Fahed Tannous, 58, of Houston (Khader Tanous’s brother who collected money for him from synthetic narcotics sales), Ali Tafesh, 37, of Houston, who owned and distributed the drugs from a store named Azell Cell Phones, Hazim Hisham Qadus, 34, a permanent resident alien who resided in Houston and distributed drugs from a store named Moon Mart and Azell Cell Phones and Nagy Ali, 61 of Spring, the manager of Smoke Zone. Tannous was ordered to serve 49 months in prison, while Tafesh, Qadus will both serve sentences of 97 months. Nagy Ali received a 120-month-prison term for his role.
Throughout the three days of hearings and the handing down of these sentences, the court’s repeated theme was its concern that the dangerous drugs these defendants were manufacturing were being marketed and distributed to juveniles.
Siddiqi and Qadus are not U.S. Citizens and are expected to face deportation proceedings following the completion of their prison terms.
Omar Maher Alnasser, a 37-year old resident of Sugar Land and former University of Houston professor, was previously sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison for aiding and abetting an unlicensed money transmitting business. He had admitted he was paid to wire more than $200,000 in U.S. currency from a bank in the United States to accounts in the country of Jordan.
The dismantling of this organizations and the convictions are the result of a multi-year, multi-agency federal investigation into one of the largest synthetic distribution networks in the nation and operated in the Houston area dubbed “We Can Hear You Now.”
All 13 defendants sentenced this week were convicted of conspiring to distribute a variety of synthetic cannabinoids, all Schedule I controlled substances. In committing the offense, several co-conspirators were accused in a scheme to defraud by marketing their products as though they were safe labeled the drugs as “potpourri” or “incense,” with some labels including false information such as “100% legal,” “lab certified” or “not for human consumption,” when in fact these products were dangerous drugs.
There are no standards for making synthetic cannabinoids which contain hazardous chemicals often imported from China that, when smoked or ingested, could have serious (sometimes deadly) side effects. Frequently, as in this case, various “brands” are mixed together in the same cement mixer, so two packets of a brand-named product may have the identical chemicals. Often, the same cement mixers are used for multiple batches of synthetic cannabinoids, so the “final” products may also be contaminated with other drugs or toxic chemicals from previous batches.
The amounts of synthetic cannabinoid in packages may also vary even within the same batches because the product is not mixed uniformly within the cement mixers. Therefore, “hot packages” with a higher concentration of the applied chemical are a common danger. According to the Center for Disease Control, synthetic cannabinoids may cause hallucinations, delusions, psychosis, suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. The health problems associated with the drug include heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, breathing problems and muscle damage.
The drugs the defendants admitted to having distributed were all Schedule I drugs – substances or chemicals with no currently accepted medical use, have a high potential for abuse, are the most dangerous drugs of all scheduled drugs and have potential for severe psychological or physical dependence. The packaging was also typical of synthetic cannabinoids - contained colorful illustrations that targeted not only drug abusers, but also children and adolescents.
In connection with this case, authorities are still seeking Ziad Mahmoud Alsalameh, 56, of Pearland, and Aqil Khader, 33, of Houston. They are considered fugitives and warrants remain outstanding for their arrests. Anyone with information about their whereabouts are asked to contact DEA at 713-693-3000.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, Houston Police Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and IRS – Criminal Investigation conducted the four-year investigation with the assistance of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Conroe Police Department, sheriff’s offices in Harris and Polk counties, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorneys John Jocher and Nancy Herrera prosecuted the case.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – An Aldie man was sentenced today to seven years and six months in prison for scheme to defraud dozens of investors in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, Missouri, and elsewhere, causing $15 million dollars in losses.According to court documents, Babu Ramaraj, 47, owned DAB Inspection and Consulting Services, LLC (DAB), a small home contractor with modest revenues doing patio and deck projects. Ramaraj claimed to investors and potential investors that DAB had lucrative contracts with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and others, and was a joint venture partner on a Washington DC Water Clean Rivers Project, for tens of millions of dollars each, supposedly to perform engineering inspection work on huge infrastructure projects.Ramaraj claimed he needed to make large upfront bond payments to secure the work but could not obtain bank financing because of the relative youth of DAB as a company and the speed with which DAB needed to secure the funding, which was supposedly not feasible with banks.In support of his claims, Ramaraj supplied to victims falsified contract award letters, invoices, DAB financial records, and other documents to induce dozens of investors to loan funds to DAB. The supposed bonds were never paid.From January 2020 through May 2024, Ramaraj pitched individuals, including members of his Loudon County cricket league, the opportunity to loan DAB money at high interest rates, annualized at 30% or more. Using money from later investors, Ramaraj paid initial investors the promised returns to entice them to continue investing and to recruit other friends and family to invest.After being confronted by two investors and signing an acknowledgment in October 2023 that he had "tampered" with numerous contracts and financial records, Ramaraj continued to make material misrepresentations concerning DAB to other investors and potential investors. Ramaraj was pitching investors up to the time he was arrested on May 30, 2024. He has been held in custody as a flight risk since his arrest.Instead of paying for the promised bonds, Ramaraj electronically transferred investor funds to his online brokerage accounts to engage in securities trades; wired over $1 million to accounts in India; purchased several automobiles, including several Teslas; obtained real properties; incurred millions in stock market trading losses, and made other payments to fund his lifestyle. Ramaraj took in nearly $40 million and caused losses to investors of approximately $15 million.In addition to the prison sentence, the Court ordered Ramaraj to pay over $15 million in restitution.Jessica D. Aber, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; David E. Geist, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office's Criminal and Cyber Division; and Jehmal T. Hudson, Chair of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, made the announcement after sentencing by Senior U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton.Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell L. Carlberg prosecuted the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Annie Zanobini is handling asset recovery efforts in the case.A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:24-cr-147.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – A 26-year-old Virginia man who previously resided in Corpus Christi has been found guilty despite claiming he was unaware it was illegal to possess child pornography, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. GanjeiThe jury deliberated for approximately nine hours before convicting Anthony Porche following a three-day trial.The investigation began in October 2023 when authorities discovered Porche had been engaging in activity involving images and videos depicting child sexual abuse material.At trial, the jury heard how law enforcement executed a search warrant at Porche’s residence and seized his electronic devices. A physical search of his cellphone resulted in the discovery of several pornographic images.Porche admitted he downloaded child pornography on his phone over a few months and that there were at least five images of child pornography on his device.Forensic analysis resulted in the discovery of approximately 500 images and videos depicting CSAM. Evidence further revealed that some of images depicted prepubescent children engaging in sexually explicit conduct and in lewd or lascivious poses.The defense attempted to convince the jury Porche was insane due to his autism diagnosis, therefore not fully aware of his conduct and unable to understand his viewing and possessing CSAM was illegal. The jury did not believe those claims and found him guilty as charged.U.S. District Judge David S. Morales presided over the trial and set sentencing for April 23. At that time, Porche faces up to 20 years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.Porche was permitted to remain on bond pending that hearing.Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations and Corpus Christi Police Department conducted the investigation.Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patrick Overman and Izaak Bruce are prosecuting the case, which was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative the Department of Justice launched in May 2006 to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. U.S. Attorneys' Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section leads PSC, which marshals federal, state and local resources to locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children and identifies and rescues victims. For more information about PSC, please visit DOJ’s PSC page. For more information about internet safety education, please visit the resources tab on that page.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Paraguay-based transnational money launderer was sentenced today to 15 years in prison.According to court documents, Federico Ezequiel Santoro Vassallo, aka Capitan, 46, was a close associate of Uruguayan national Sebastian Enrique Marset Cabrera, 29, who, as alleged in an indictment, is a transnational drug-trafficker responsible for moving ton quantities of cocaine worth millions of dollars from South America to Europe. Santoro served as a transnational money launderer for drug-trafficking organizations and facilitated the movement of millions of dollars of drug proceeds from various countries in Europe to South America and elsewhere.Santoro and his co-conspirators arranged for the collection of narcotics proceeds and utilized couriers and tokens to covertly deliver bulk illicit currency, typically in euros. Santoro’s co-conspirators specialized in placing the illicit currency into the global banking system. He then would direct the movement of the funds internationally, usually via bank wire transfer. Santoro typically directed that the funds be delivered in U.S. dollars and a correspondent bank in the United States would facilitate the transaction.Santoro used at least seven businesses to facilitate the transmission of money and hid the location and ownership of the assets being laundered by using unrelated companies, all registered as purportedly doing business in different, unrelated industries. Santoro used businesses registered in South America and Asia to receive the laundered drug proceeds and concealed the source of the funds by creating false invoices to justify the wire transfers.Santoro threatened violence to protect his money laundering activities. Santoro laundered millions of dollars of drug proceeds and, in a span of less than five months, directed the movement of more than $11 million in drug-trafficking funds through U.S. banks. As payment, Santoro took a percentage of the illicit bulk cash proceeds that he laundered.As part of the sentence, the Court entered an Order of Forfeiture in the amount of $11,537,860.47.Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Louis A. D’Ambrosio, Special Agent in Charge for the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Special Operations Division, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr.The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and law enforcement partners in Paraguay provided substantial assistance to secure the arrest and extradition of Santoro Vassallo.Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anthony T. Aminoff and Catherine Rosenberg prosecuted the case.Anyone with information about Marset’s operation, including his drug trafficking, money laundering, and use of (or threats to use) violence, or about his location, is urged to contact the DEA by email at MarsetTips@dea.gov.This investigation is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District CourtLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACERLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. by searching for Case No. 1:23-cr-143.
WASHINGTON – Three Nigerian citizens were extradited from the United Kingdom (UK) and arrived in the United States in relation to their alleged participation in multimillion-dollar cyber-enabled business email compromise (BEC) fraud schemes in the Western District of North Carolina, Southern District of Texas and Eastern District of Virginia. The scams allegedly perpetrated by the defendants and their co-conspirators targeted unsuspecting victims including universities in North Carolina, Texas and Virginia, and attempted to cause more than $5 million in losses.
BEC, also known as “cyber-enabled financial fraud,” is a sophisticated scam often targeting employees with access to company finances, businesses working with foreign suppliers and/or businesses that regularly perform wire transfer payments. The same criminal organizations that perpetrate BEC also exploit individual victims, often real estate purchasers, the elderly, and others, by convincing them to make wire transfers to bank accounts controlled by the criminals. This is often accomplished by impersonating a key employee or business partner after obtaining access to that person’s email account or sometimes done through romance and lottery scams. BEC scams may involve fraudulent requests for checks rather than wire transfers; they may target sensitive information such as personally identifiable information (PII) or employee tax records instead of, or in addition to, money; and they may not involve an actual “compromise” of an email account or computer network. Foreign citizens perpetrate many BEC scams. Those individuals are often members of transnational criminal organizations, which originated in Nigeria but have spread throughout the world.
Western District of North Carolina
Oludayo Kolawole John Adeagbo aka John Edwards and John Dayo, 43, a Nigerian citizen and UK resident, and Donald Ikenna Echeazu aka Donald Smith and Donald Dodient, 40, a dual UK and Nigerian citizen, are charged with wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy and aggravated identity theft for defrauding a North Carolina university (the University) of more than $1.9 million via a business email compromise scheme. The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in the Western District of North Carolina on April 17, 2019, and was unsealed yesterday following Echeazu’s initial appearance in federal court in Charlotte.
According to allegations contained in the indictment, from Aug. 30, 2016, to Jan. 12, 2017, Adeagbo and Echeazu conspired with other individuals to obtain information about significant construction projects occurring throughout the United States, including an ongoing multi-million-dollar project at the victim University. To execute the scheme, the defendants allegedly registered a domain name similar to that of the legitimate construction company in charge of the University’s project and created an email address that closely resembled that of an employee of the construction company. Using the fake email address, the co-conspirators allegedly deceived and directed the University to wire a payment of more than $1.9 million to a bank account controlled by an individual working under the direction of defendants. Upon receiving the payment, the co-conspirators allegedly laundered the stolen proceeds through a series of financial transactions designed to conceal the fraud.
The wire fraud conspiracy charge and the money laundering conspiracy charge each carry a maximum statutory sentence of 20 years in prison. The aggravated identity theft charge carries a mandatory two-year prison sentence consecutive to any other term imposed.
The FBI Charlotte Field Office conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Graham Billings of the Western District of North Carolina is prosecuting the case.
Southern District of Texas
Oludayo Kolawole John Adeagbo aka John Edwards and John Dayo, 43, a Nigerian citizen and UK resident, is also charged in the Southern District of Texas with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. A federal grand jury returned the indictment March 30, 2022, which was unsealed on Aug. 3, 2022 before he was extradited to the United States.
From November 2016 until July 2018, Adeagbo allegedly conspired with others to participate in cyber-enabled business email compromises in an attempt to steal more than $3 million from victims in Texas, including local government entities, construction companies and a Houston-area college. The indictment alleges Adeagbo and his co-conspirators registered domain names that looked similar to legitimate companies. They then sent emails from those domains pretending to be employees at those companies, according to the charges. The conspirators allegedly sent emails to clients or customers of the companies they impersonated and deceived those customers into sending wire payments to bank accounts they controlled.
Adeagbo faces up to 20 years in prison, if convicted on the charges.
The FBI Houston Cyber Task Force conducted the investigation with the assistance of the FBI Cyber and Criminal Investigative Divisions. The United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency, Metropolitan Police Service, City of London Police and Crown Prosecution Service also provided substantial assistance. Assistant U.S. Attorney Rodolfo Ramirez for the Southern District of Texas is prosecuting the case along with Trial Attorney Brian Mund of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS).
Eastern District of Virginia
Olabanji Egbinola, 42, is charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
According to a criminal complaint issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, from Sept. 26, 2018, to Dec. 26, 2018, Egbinola is alleged to have conspired with others to defraud a Virginia-based university. Egbinola and co-conspirators created and used a fraudulent email account that incorporated the name of a construction company that had a large, ongoing contract with the university. Using this email account, Egbinola and co-conspirators deceived the university into transferring $469,819.49 to a bank account controlled by Egbinola and co-conspirators. That money was quickly laundered and transferred overseas through numerous transactions. Evidence obtained during the investigation showed that Egbinola repeatedly accessed the email account used to defraud the Virginia university.
The FBI Richmond Division conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Hood of for the Eastern District of Virginia is prosecuting the case.
All three defendants were arrested April 23, 2020, by UK authorities at the request of the United States and ordered extradited on Sept. 3, 2021. All three defendants filed appeals, all of which were rejected by the UK High Court on July 12, 2022.
The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs provided substantial assistance in securing the arrest and extradition of all three defendants.
Victims are encouraged to file a complaint online with the IC3 at bec.ic3.gov. The IC3 staff reviews complaints, looking for patterns or other indicators of significant criminal activity, and refers investigative packages of complaints to the appropriate law enforcement authorities in a particular city or region. The FBI provides a variety of resources relating to BEC scams through the IC3, which can be reached at www.ic3.gov. For more information on BEC scams, visit: https://www.fbi.gov/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/business-email-compromise.
The charges contained in an indictment are merely allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
HOUSTON – The leader in a conspiracy to commit mail fraud has been ordered to federal prison, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.
MD Azad, 26, an Indian national who illegally resided in Houston, pleaded guilty Aug. 15, 2022, admitting he participated in a fraud ring from 2019-2020 which operated out of various cities including Houston.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt has now ordered Azad to serve 188 months in federal prison. Azad, a citizen of India, is expected to face removal proceedings following the prison term. At the hearing, the court heard additional evidence that described Azad as the U.S.-based ringleader working with a call center in India. In handing down the sentence, the court noted the many letters and victim impact statements it had read showing the financial devastation to elderly and vulnerable victims throughout the United States because of this fraud scheme.
“The victims in this case were devastated, financially and otherwise,” said Hamdani. “This fraud ring repeatedly preyed on elderly and vulnerable people in the United States who spoke of threats of bodily harm if they did not comply with demands for more money. Our hope, and that of many of the victims, is deterrence so as to stop others who would think of doing similar harm in our community and beyond.”
The scheme targeted elderly victims throughout the United States and elsewhere.
The ring tricked and deceived victims using various ruses and instructed them to send money via wire through a money transmitter business such as Western Union or MoneyGram, by buying gift cards and providing to the fraudsters or by mailing cash to alias names via FedEx or UPS.
Part of the scheme involved fraudsters contacting victims by phone or via internet sites for computer technical support and directing victims to a particular phone number. Once victims contacted the fraudsters, they were told various stories such as they were communicating with an expert that needed remote access to their computer in order to provide technical support services. The fraudsters then gained access to victims’ personal data and bank and credit card information.
Victims typically paid a fee to conspirators for the fake technical support but were later told they were due a refund. Through paying for “technical support” or through the “refund” process, the ring gained access to the victim’s bank account(s) and credit cards and manipulated the accounts to make it appear the victim was paid too large a refund due to a typographical error. Victims were then instructed to reimburse the ring by various means.
Victims were sometimes re-victimized multiple times and threatened with bodily harm if they did not pay.
Indian citizen Anirudha Kalkote, 26, also pleaded guilty in relation to the conspiracy as did Sumit Kumar Singh, 26, Himanshu Kumar, 26, and MD Hasib, 27, all also Indian nationals who illegally resided in Houston. They are pending sentencing.
All five individuals will remain in custody.
The FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and IRS Criminal Investigation conducted the investigation with assistance from Homeland Security Investigations, Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office and other local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States including the Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office of Augusta County, Virginia. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Belinda Beek and Quincy Ollison prosecuted the case.
The case is brought as a part of the Elder Justice Initiative. Its goal is to support and coordinate the Department’s enforcement and programmatic efforts to combat elder abuse, neglect and financial fraud and scams that target our nation’s older adults.
In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice launched National Elder Fraud Hotline to help combat fraud against older Americans and provide services to victims. If you or someone you know is a victim of elder fraud, we encourage you to call the National Elder Fraud Hotline at 833–FRAUD–11 (833–372–8311).
The hotline is open Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. eastern time. Services are available for speakers of English, Spanish and other languages.
HOUSTON – A total of 22 cases are being announced as part of local efforts targeting health care fraud and include various schemes alleging unlawful distribution of controlled substances, some of which were diverted onto the black market, hospice fraud, kickbacks and other Medicare/Medicaid fraud schemes involving medically unnecessary genetic tests, durable medical equipment and more. The charges filed in Southern District of Texas (SDTX) federal court are part of the Department of Justice’s 2025 national health care fraud takedown.“Americans rely on Medicare for needed treatments and living-saving care. Those that bilk this fund to unlawfully enrich themselves are ultimately stealing from the taxpayer and damaging public confidence in our health system,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. “Today’s takedown is a reminder to would-be medical fraudsters that the Department of Justice is always standing guard over the public fisc.”“This record-setting health care fraud takedown delivers justice to criminal actors who prey upon our most vulnerable citizens and steal from hardworking American taxpayers,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Make no mistake – this administration will not tolerate criminals who line their pockets with taxpayer dollars while endangering the health and safety of our communities.”One of the largest cases include three individuals for their alleged roles in a $110 million hospice fraud and kickback scheme. The charges allege Dera Ogudo, 39, and Victoria Martinez, 35, both of Richmond, operated hospice company United Palliative & Hospice Company (UPHC) that misled vulnerable elderly adults about what services were being billed to their Medicare and Medicaid plans. According to court documents, UPHC Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and/or their family members believed they would be receiving palliative or home health services. In truth, these patients were enrolled in hospice services but were not actually terminally ill as Medicare and Medicaid requires, according to the charges. Ogudo allegedly paid kickbacks to several group homeowners in exchange for enrolling their beneficiaries in hospice with UPHC and bribed a physician to certify and re-certify UPHC patients as terminally ill when they were not. Ogudo also allegedly paid kickbacks to Evelyn Shaw, 52, Houston, in exchange for referrals from a local psychiatric hospital where Shaw was employed as discharge coordinator.In relation to the scheme, Carlos Munoz, 57, Richmond, is charged by information. Ogudo allegedly paid Munoz, a medical doctor, kickbacks and bribes to certify and re-certify Medicare and Medicaid patients for hospices services.In a separate case, Keilan Peterson aka Young Jay or Jay, 38, and Kimberly Martinez, 47, Houston, have been charged for their alleged participation in a scheme to unlawfully distribute and dispense controlled substances in exchange for cash through Relief Medical Center and GroveCare clinics in Houston. As alleged in their indictment, Peterson paid three doctors to allow Peterson, Martinez and others at the clinics to use the doctors’ electronic prescribing credentials to issue prescriptions for significant amounts of hydrocodone, carisoprodol and oxycodone. Peterson also allegedly sent some of these illegitimate prescriptions to his own pharmacy, Next Level Pharmacy, and took possession of the controlled substances to sell on the black market. In total, the indictment alleges Peterson and others issued over 2 million controlled substance pills, the vast majority of which were unauthorized, issued without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice.A podiatrist and the self-proclaimed CEO of a local medical clinic were also charged in another $90 million Medicare fraud scheme. The 15-count superseding indictment alleges David Jenson, 57, and Nestor Rafael Romero Magallanes, 29, both of Spring, conspired to fraudulently bill Medicare for over $90 million for skin substitute products-often for patients who did not have qualifying wounds. They allegedly submitted claims for patients who did not have qualifying wounds, or any wounds at all, and continued billing even after a 2023 audit denied all their claims and flagged the conduct as improper. The indictment further alleges Jenson and Romero falsified medical records to make it appear patients had chronic wounds and manipulated documentation to show those wounds were improving despite no such existing conditions. Charged with wire fraud, Tyneza P. Mitchell, 43, Spring, was allegedly involved in a scheme to bill the COVID-19 Claims Reimbursement to Health Care Providers and Facilities for Testing, Treatment and Vaccine Administration for the Uninsured Program. The charges allege billing included in-office consultations regarding COVID diagnosis and treatment she never provided. As alleged in the indictment, Mitchell is a licensed nurse practitioner who received $9.9 million as a result of her fraudulent scheme.Daphne Johnson, 60, Stafford, was allegedly involved in a scheme to bill Medicaid $793,804 for mental health therapy services she never provided. As alleged in the information, Johnson received $331,112 as a result of her fraudulent scheme.Prosecutors with the Department of Justice’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force also filed charges against several more individuals in this district with assistance from SDTX.Chad Harper, 49, Pearland, is facing numerous charges in connection with a $115 Medicare fraud scheme. As alleged in the indictment, Harper owned multiple laboratories through which he billed Medicare for genetic and other diagnostic testing induced by kickbacks and bribes which were medically unnecessary or otherwise ineligible for Medicare. The indictment alleges Harper generated business through a nationwide network of marketers who directed referrals to the laboratories in exchange for illegal kickbacks that Harper paid through shell companies. Harper allegedly funded his operation through, among other ways, obtaining a fraudulent equipment loan from a local credit union. Harper allegedly laundered the proceeds of his schemes through other shell companies, which purchased and held real properties and assets and passed profits on to Harper.Dr. Maryam “Meg” Qayum, 67, New Caney, is charged with multiple counts of illegally distributing a controlled substance along with Jared Williams, 48, Pearland; and Tomi-Ko Bowers, 70, Lester “Lay” Stokes, 37, and Melvin Sampson, 55, all of Houston. The charges stem from their alleged roles in diverting more than three million opioids onto the black market. As alleged in the indictment, Qayum is a medical doctor and Bowers an advanced practice registered nurse who operated Recare Clinic in Kingwood along with Stokes. They allegedly sold oxycodone and hydrocodone prescriptions to drug traffickers in exchange for cash. Sampson is alleged to be one such individual who recruited others to pose as patients, paid cash for the prescriptions from Qayum, filled Qayum’s prescriptions at complicit pharmacies and resold the drugs on the black market.Other Strike Force cases include one charging Sacha Lashun Betts, 47, Houston, and Nicholas Aguillard, 49, Rosenberg; Lisa Darlene Durden, 60, and Jordan O. Williams, 56, both of Missouri City; Quincy Guillory, 51, Richmond; Mykel Walker, 42, Cypress, and Kaeita Rankin, 48, Houston. The indictment alleges they participated in a conspiracy to distribute and dispense controlled substances in connection with the establishment, oversight and operation of a drug trafficking organization that controlled more than a dozen “front” pharmacies used to sell opioids and other commonly abused prescription drugs, often in bulk, to street-level drug dealers on Houston’s black market. From 2015 through 2022, the defendants’ pharmacies unlawfully distributed and dispensed more than 4.4 million doses of opioids and other commonly abused prescription drugs, with an estimated street value exceeding $75 million, according to the charges. The co-conspirators allegedly sold opioids and other commonly abused prescription drugs to street-level drug traffickers in exchange for cash.Other cases involve fraudulent schemes for kickbacks or billing Medicare for medically unnecessary genetic tests or footbath drugs, durable medical equipment, conspiracies to unlawfully distribute and dispense controlled substances, some involving diversion onto the black market or in connection to the operation of pill-mill pharmacies. Those charged in this district also include residents of Houston, Richmond, League City, Rosharon, Sugar Land, Katy, Pearland and Manvel as well as U.S. citizens from Florida, Indiana and Georgia.All the cases are part of a strategically coordinated, nationwide law enforcement action that resulted in criminal charges against 324 defendants for their alleged participation in health care fraud and illegal drug diversion schemes that involved the submission of over $14.6 billion in intended loss and over 15 million pills of illegally diverted controlled substances. The defendants allegedly defrauded programs entrusted for the care of the elderly and disabled to line their own pockets. The United States has seized over $245 million in cash, luxury vehicles and other assets in connection with the takedown.Descriptions of each SDTX case and others involved in the enforcement actions are available on the Department of Justice’s website.Department of Health and Human Services - Office of Inspector General (OIG), FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, Texas Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Federal Housing Finance Agency – OIG and U.S. Postal Service - OIG conducted the various investigations with assistance of police departments in Conroe, Dickinson and Houston. Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) Brad Gray, Kathryn Olson, Christine Lu, Alexander Alum and Thomas Carter are prosecting the SDTX cases with assistance from AUSAs Kristine Rollinson and Brandon Fyffe who are handling forfeiture matters. Counsel to the Chief of the Health Care Fraud Unit Alexis Gregorian, Acting Assistant Chief Devon Helfmeyer, Senior Litigation Counsel Catherine Wagner and Trial Attorneys Adam Tisdall, Andrew Tamayo, Monica Cooper, Benjamin Smith, Yael Mash, Erika V. Suhr, Ethan Womble, Claire Horrell and Gary A. Crosby are prosecuting the Strike Force matters.SDTX and The Health Care Fraud Unit’s Rapid Response, Texas, Florida, Gulf Coast, Los Angeles, Midwest, New England and Northeast Strike Forces are prosecuting the cases as well as U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for the Districts of Columbia, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont; Northern and Western Districts of Texas; Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California; Middle, Northern and Southern Districts of Florida; Middle District of Georgia; Northern District of Illinois; Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky; Eastern and Middle Districts of Louisiana; Eastern District of Michigan; Northern and Southern Districts of Mississippi; Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Districts of New York; Eastern and Western Districts of North Carolina; Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio; Northern and Western Districts of Oklahoma; Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Middle and Western Districts of Tennessee; Eastern District of Virginia; Western District of Washington; Northern District of West Virginia; and State Attorney Generals’ Offices for Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania with assistance from the Health Care Fraud Unit’s Data Analytics Team.A complaint, information or indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Maryland woman was sentenced yesterday to four years in prison for bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.According to court documents, on Nov. 23, 2022, Loryn Michelle Dorsey, 36, of Elkridge, Maryland, fraudulently obtained the personal identifying information (PII) of two victims, identified as K.R. and Z.B, due to their high credit scores, which she needed to fraudulently obtain a loan from a bank to purchase a vehicle. Dorsey also assumed the fake identity of “Julia Ball,” who is not a real person.On December 6, 2022, Dorsey used K.R.’s PII to apply online for financing to purchase a vehicle from a car dealership in Fairfax, falsely presenting herself as K.R., a female. The dealership then submitted the information to financial institutions to provide the requested credit. Ally Bank, among others, received but rejected the application, but no loan was awarded, and no vehicle was purchased.Later that day, Dorsey again attempted to obtain approval for financing to purchase a vehicle from the same dealership, this time applying with Z.B. as the co-purchaser and “Julia Ball” as the co-owner. Through the dealership’s website, Dorsey was granted conditional approval of a loan from Ally Bank based on Z.B.’s good credit rating. Because Z.B. had to be present to complete the purchase, and because Z.B. is a man, Dorsey asked a coconspirator to accompany her to the dealership and fraudulently present himself as Z.B. Dorsey also arranged for someone to create a fraudulent identification document with Z.B.’s information and the co-conspirator’s photograph.Dorsey and the co-conspirator, at Dorsey’s direction, completed paperwork to purchase a 2015 Cadillac Escalade for $48,629.20, with $1,000 cash downpayment provided by Dorsey and the remaining sum of $47,629.20 to be financed by Ally Bank. Fairfax County Police (FCPD) arrived at the dealership after the paperwork was completed. When Dorsey was arrested, she was in possession of a firearm. In 2016, Dorsey was convicted of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance in Maryland. As a previously convicted felon, Dorsey cannot legally possess a firearm or ammunition.Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; and Emily Odom, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office's Criminal and Cyber Division, and Kevin Davis, Fairfax County Chief of Police, made the announcement after sentencing by Senior U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga.FCPD Auto Crimes Enforcement and the FBI WFO TOC-E/Major Theft Task Force investigated this case.Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicholas A. Durham prosecuted the case.This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District CourtLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACERLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. by searching for Case No. 1:24-cr-7.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas – A 62-year-old man pleaded guilty to attempting to smuggle two Iranian citizens into the country, announced U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.
Gholamreza Hosseinpour, Fairfax, Virginia, pleaded guilty to two counts of transporting illegal aliens within the United States.
As part of his plea, he admitted that on Dec. 19, 2021, he flew from his home state to Texas. He rented a vehicle in San Antonio and drove to McAllen to pick up two individuals that had crossed into the United States from Mexico. Hosseinpour then drove them north to the Javier Vega Jr. Border Patrol (BP) checkpoint located near Sarita.
There, law enforcement conducted an initial inspection, at which time the two individuals could not answer questions about their citizenship. Authorities ultimately determined each individual was from Iran and illegally present in the United States.
U.S. District Judge David S. Morales will impose sentencing June 9. At that time, Hosseinpour faces up to five years of imprisonment and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.
He was permitted to remain on bond pending that hearing.
BP conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dennis Robinson and Molly Smith are prosecuting the case.
HOUSTON – A 25-year-old Indian citizen has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.
Anirudha Kalkote admitted he participated in a fraud ring from 2019-2020 which operated out of various cities including Houston. The scheme targeted elderly victims throughout the United States and elsewhere.
The ring tricked and deceived victims using various ruses and instructed them to send money via wire through a money transmitter business such as Western Union or MoneyGram, by buying gift cards and providing to the fraudsters or by mailing cash to alias names via FedEx or UPS.
Part of the scheme involved fraudsters contacting victims by phone or via internet sites for computer technical support and directing victims to a particular phone number. Once victims contacted the fraudsters, they were told various stories such as they were communicating with an expert that needed remote access to their computer in order to provide technical support services. The fraudsters then gained access to victims’ personal data and bank and credit card information.
Victims typically paid a fee to conspirators for the fake technical support but were later told they were due a refund. Through paying for “technical support” or through the “refund” process, the ring gained access to the victim’s bank account(s) and credit cards and manipulated the accounts to make it appear the victim was paid too large a refund due to a typographical error. Victims were then instructed to reimburse the ring by various means.
Victims were sometimes re-victimized multiple times and threatened with bodily harm if they did not pay.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt accepted the plea and set sentencing for June 26. At that time, he faces up to 20 years in federal prison and a possible $250,000 maximum fine.
Four others have already pleaded guilty in relation to the scheme and are awaiting sentencing April 20. MD Azad, 26, Sumit Kumar Singh, 25, Himanshu Kumar, 25, and MD Hasib, 27 are Indian nationals who illegally resided in Houston.
All five individuals remain in custody pending sentencing.
The FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and IRS-Criminal Investigation conducted the investigation with assistance from Homeland Security Investigations, Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office and other local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States including the Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office of Augusta County, Virginia. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Belinda Beek and Quincy Ollison are prosecuting the case.
The case is brought as a part of the Elder Justice Initiative. Its goal is to support and coordinate the Department’s enforcement and programmatic efforts to combat elder abuse, neglect and financial fraud and scams that target our nation’s older adults.
In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice launched National Elder Fraud Hotline to help combat fraud against older Americans and provide services to victims. If you or someone you know is a victim of elder fraud, we encourage you to call the National Elder Fraud Hotline at 833–FRAUD–11 (833–372–8311).
The hotline is open Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. eastern time. Services are available for speakers of English, Spanish and other languages.
HOUSTON – Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has appointed U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani to serve on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys (AGAC).
The AGAC was created in 1973 and advises the Attorney General on matters of policy, procedure and management impacting the offices of the U.S. Attorneys and elevates the voices of U.S. Attorneys on essential matters facing the Department of Justice.
“U.S. Attorneys work every day throughout the country to advance our mission of upholding the rule of law, keeping our country safe, and protecting civil rights,” said Garland. “I am grateful for the perspective the newest members of the committee will provide on behalf of federal prosecutors across the country and the communities they serve.”
“It is an honor to be chosen to serve on the AGAC,” said Hamdani. “I look forward to learning from and serving with my fellow AGAC members as we advise the Attorney General and the Department of Justice’s leadership.”
U.S. Attorney Hamdani will serve alongside chair Damian Williams of the Southern District of New York, vice chair Gary Restaino for the District of Arizona and newest members Alexander M.M. Uballez for the District of New Mexico, Breon Peace for the Eastern District of New York, Kenneth Parker for the Southern District of Ohio, Natalie K. Wight for the District of Oregon, Eric G. Olshan for the Western District of Pennsylvania and Christopher R. Kavanaugh for the Western District of Virginia as well as Ryan Buchanan of the Northern District of Georgia, Gregory K. Harris of the Central District of Illinois, Andrew M. Luger of the District of Minnesota and Darcie N. McElwee of the District of Maine.
President Biden nominated Hamdani to serve as U.S. Attorney for this district Nov. 14, 2002, upon the recommendation of U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. The full Senate unanimously confirmed his appointment Dec. 6, 2022. He was sworn in Dec. 12, 2022.
As U.S. Attorney, Hamdani is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX), responsible for prosecuting and defending the interests of the United States in the seventh largest district in the nation.
Hamdani has been with the Department of Justice since 2008. Most recently, he has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) with the SDTX, primarily responsible for the investigation and prosecution of national security and official corruption crimes. From 2010 to 2014, Hamdani served in the Counterterrorism Section of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, holding the position of deputy chief from 2012 to 2014. Prior to that, he was an AUSA in the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The SDTX typically prosecutes more cases against more defendants than most other U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide, representing 43 counties and nine million people and covering 44,000 square miles. This district currently comprises seven U.S. District Court divisions with federal district courts in Houston, Galveston, Victoria, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, McAllen and Laredo. The U.S. Attorney's office, headquartered in Houston, has branch offices in all seven divisions.
HOUSTON – All people charged in a conspiracy to commit mail fraud have been ordered to federal prison, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.
Indian citizens MD Azad, 26, Sumit Kumar Singh, 30, Himanshu Kumar, 26, MD Hasib, 28, and Anirudha Kalkote, 26, admitted they participated in a fraud ring from 2019-2020 which operated out of various cities including Houston. All illegally resided in Houston.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt has now ordered Hasib to serve 78 months in federal prison. The court previously sentenced Singh, Kumar and Kalkote each also to 78 months, while Azad, the highest ranking member of the conspiracy in the United States, received 188 months. Not U.S. citizens, all are expected to face removal proceedings following the prison terms.
At the respective hearings, the court heard evidence from victim impact letters that described the suffering that almost 200 victims, many of whom were elderly, had endured because of this fraud. Some victims lost their life savings. Others were threatened when they refused to continue to pay and described continuing fear and ongoing anxiety after being watched through the video cameras on their home computers. In handing down the sentences, the court noted that the victim letters sounded like a “horror show.”
“Anxiety, fear, humiliation and devastating financial loss are what these victims endured,” said Hamdani. “The criminals were relentless, preying on the elderly, often revictimizing their targets. These scammers from India didn’t care what impact their scheme had; all they cared about was money and a lot of it. Thankfully, the court imposed a just sentence for each of these ruthless fraudsters, bringing the victims peace and closure.”
“The sentences imposed for the defendants in this case should serve as a harbinger for anyone attempting to defraud and manipulate our nation’s elderly. Prison awaits you,” said Special Agent in Charge Ramsey E. Covington of IRS Criminal Investigation (CI). “This was an effort that combined the investigative skills of multiple law enforcement agencies that partnered together to uphold our commitment to the Elder Justice Initiative. We will continue to protect our seniors.”
The scheme targeted elderly victims throughout the United States and elsewhere.
The ring tricked and deceived victims using various ruses and instructed them to send money via wire through a money transmitter business such as Western Union or MoneyGram, by buying gift cards and providing to the fraudsters or by mailing cash to alias names via FedEx or UPS.
Part of the scheme involved fraudsters contacting victims by phone or via internet sites for computer technical support and directing victims to a particular phone number. Once victims contacted the fraudsters, they were told various stories such as they were communicating with an expert that needed remote access to their computer in order to provide technical support services. The fraudsters then gained access to victims’ personal data and bank and credit card information.
Victims typically paid a fee to conspirators for the fake technical support but were later told they were due a refund. Through paying for “technical support” or through the “refund” process, the ring gained access to the victim’s bank account(s) and credit cards and manipulated the accounts to make it appear the victim was paid too large a refund due to a typographical error. Victims were then instructed to reimburse the ring by various means.
Victims were sometimes re-victimized multiple times and threatened with bodily harm if they did not pay.
All five individuals will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.
The FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection Service and IRS CI conducted the investigation with assistance from Homeland Security Investigations, Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office and other local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States including the Sheriff’s Office and Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office of Augusta County, Virginia. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Belinda Beek and Quincy Ollison prosecuted the case.
The case is brought as a part of the Elder Justice Initiative. Its goal is to support and coordinate the Department’s enforcement and programmatic efforts to combat elder abuse, neglect and financial fraud and scams that target our nation’s older adults.
In March 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice launched National Elder Fraud Hotline to help combat fraud against older Americans and provide services to victims. If you or someone you know is a victim of elder fraud, we encourage you to call the National Elder Fraud Hotline at 833–FRAUD–11 (833–372–8311).
The hotline is open Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. eastern time. Services are available for speakers of English, Spanish and other languages.
HOUSTON - A six-count second superseding indictment has been unsealed, charging four Venezuelan nationals, including multiple alleged high-ranking members of Tren de Aragua - a designated foreign terrorist organization, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. The indictment adds charges against Yohan Jose Romero aka Johan Petrica, 48, and Juan Gabriel Rivas Nunez aka Juancho, 44, for conspiring to provide and providing material support to TdA. Also charged in those counts are Giovanni Vicente Mosquera Serrano aka El Viejo, 37, and Jose Enrique Martinez Flores aka Chuqui, 24. Mosquera Serrano and Martinez Flores are also under indictment for conspiracy and distribution of cocaine in Colombia intended for distribution in the United States.“Tren de Aragua poses a direct threat to our national security, to our communities, and to our American way of life,” said Ganjei. “These defendants allegedly conspired to support a highly-structured foreign terrorist organization by smuggling bulk quantities of cocaine across our southern border and funneling the proceeds back to their fellow terrorists in Venezuela. The Southern District of Texas will scour the Earth to find and prosecute narco-terrorists, wherever they may hide. The American people have demanded nothing less than the total elimination of foreign terror groups like TdA, and Operation Take Back America will deliver.”“TdA grew from a prison gang to a transnational criminal organization to a foreign terrorist organization,” said Co-Director Christopher Eason of Joint Task Force Vulcan. “Gold and drug trafficking, and violence and extortion to support TdA’s terrorist activities will not be tolerated. The charges unsealed today against TdA members and, specifically, some of the highest leaders of TdA, is directly in line with JTFV’s mission: a collaborative, whole of government effort to destroy TdA. We are grateful for our partnership with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas and our law enforcement partners who worked tirelessly to investigate and bring these important charges.”A federal grand jury in Houston returned a second superseding indictment Dec. 16, which has now been unsealed in its entirety. According to court records, Jose Romero and Mosquera Serrano are two of the three topmost leaders of TdA. Jose Romero is allegedly one of the organization’s founders and exercises command and control over all of TdA’s criminal operations, including the illegal importation and smuggling of gold and narcotics as well as extortion and murder. Mosquera Serrano is an alleged senior leader who oversees TdA criminal operations across Colombia, Central America and the United States. The indictment alleges Rivas Nunez and Martinez Flores are also high-ranking TdA leaders who operate out of multiple South American countries and direct operations to include gold smuggling, narcotics export and violent crime.For years and up to the present, Jose Romero has allegedly exercised leadership over TdA, as one with authority over TdA’s expansion across the Western Hemisphere. The charges allege that under his authority, TdA members and associates engaged in a wide range of crimes, including extortions, kidnappings, murders, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and sex trafficking, robberies, bank burglaries and money laundering. He and other leaders have charged and collected a “causa” or fee from lower-level TdA members and others to work in their area of control, according to the allegations. These payments allegedly enrich TdA leadership and provide financial support to TdA, and members would threaten, beat or murder those who did not pay it.As a TdA leader operating and managing from Venezuela, Jose Romero has allegedly ordered, directed, facilitated and supported such acts of violence and terrorism, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and maiming against victims located inside and outside the United States.The charges also allege Mosquera Serrano and Martinez Flores caused the delivery of more than five kilograms of cocaine for international distribution, proceeds of which were used to further TdA’s criminal goals.“Federal charges keep coming for alleged TdA leaders, regardless of where they are,” said Special Agent in Charge Douglas Williams of the FBI Houston Field Office. “Just as the Venezuelan foreign terrorist organization is relentless in sowing violence and terrorizing communities throughout America, so are the efforts of the FBI and our law enforcement and prosecutorial partners in our commitment to make our neighborhoods peaceful and safer.”“The Drug Enforcement Administration is unwavering in its mission to dismantle the command and control of Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization that thrives on drug trafficking and violence,” said Special Agent in Charge Eugene L. Crouch of the DEA Andean Division. “For years, TdA has exploited corruption to expand its reach and evade justice, but those days are over. DEA is relentlessly targeting TdA’s leadership, financial networks, and infrastructure, and we will not rest until these individuals are brought to justice. We are grateful to the Colombian National Police and the Colombian Attorney General’s Office for their invaluable partnership in this investigation.”On Feb. 20, the Department of State designated TdA as a foreign terrorist organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist.Colombian authorities arrested Martinez Flores March 31 in Colombia pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant the United States had requested. He remains in custody there pending further proceedings.Mosquera Serrano is on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted Fugitives List. Jose Romero and Rivas Nunez are also fugitives. If you have any information concerning either individual, please contact the FBI via WhatsApp or Telegram at 281-787-9939. Those with information may also contact their local FBI office, nearest American Embassy or Consulate or can submit a tip online at tips.fbi.gov.The Department of State’s Transnational Organized Crime Rewards Program is also offering a reward of up to $4 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Jose Romero and up to $5 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Mosquera Serrano.All four are charged with one count of conspiring to provide material support to TdA in the form of personnel (including themselves) and services and one count of providing material support to TdA. The indictment also charges Martinez Flores and Mosquera Serrano with one count of international drug distribution conspiracy based on their involvement in the distribution of five kilograms of cocaine or more and two substantive counts of international drug distribution.If convicted, all face up to life in prison and a possible $10 million fine.The FBI and DEA conducted the investigation with the assistance of the Houston Police Department, Harris County Sheriff’s Office, U.S. Marshals Service, Colombian National Police and the Colombian Attorney General’s Office (Fiscalía General de la Nación). The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and the Criminal Division’s Office of Judicial Attaché in Bogotá, Colombia, provided significant assistance.Assistant U.S. Attorneys Casey N. MacDonald and Anibal J. Alaniz are prosecuting the case along with Deputy Director David C. Smith and Trial Attorneys James Keller and Kelly McGann from JTFV.JTFV was created in 2019 to eradicate MS-13 and now expanded to target TdA. It is comprised of U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country to include the Southern District of Texas; Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; Eastern and Western Districts of North Carolina; Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia; Southern District of Florida; Eastern District of Texas; Western District of Oklahoma; Northern District of Indiana; and the District of Nevada; as well as the Department of Justice’s National Security Division and the Criminal Division. Additionally, the FBI, DEA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; USMS, and Federal Bureau of Prisons are essential law enforcement partners with JTFV.This case is also a part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.
HOUSTON - A five-count superseding indictment has been unsealed charging a Venezuelan national and alleged high-ranking member of the designated foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). Jose Enrique Martinez Flores aka “Chuqui,” 24, is charged in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) with conspiring to provide and providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization as well as conspiracy and distribution of cocaine in Colombia intended for distribution in the United States.“TdA is not a street gang – it is a highly structured terrorist organization that put down roots in our country during the prior administration,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “Today’s charges represent an inflection point in how this Department of Justice will prosecute and ultimately dismantle this evil organization, which has destroyed American families and poisoned our communities.”“For the past few years, foreign gangs like TdA have more or less been able to enter our country with impunity, coming here to distribute deadly drugs and terrorize American citizens. That ends now. This Department of Justice is committed to uprooting this terrorist gang, dismantling its criminal operations, and either imprisoning its members or removing them from the country. SDTX is proud to lead this fight,” said U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.”“TdA is a direct threat to our national security, to our communities, and to Americans,” said FBI Director Kash Patel. “Together with our law enforcement partners, the FBI continues in our pursuit to eliminate this violent terrorist organization from our streets, and today's announcement makes it clear that these criminals, especially the leaders of these cartels, have no place in our country.”“This joint Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) - FBI operation - alongside partners in the U.S. and Colombia - is further evidence that we must continue to focus our efforts on members of TdA who continue to pump poison into our communities,” said DEA Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. “This is another example of DEA’s tenacity to hunt these networks down, wherever they operate, and crush their evil grip on American lives.”Colombian authorities arrested Flores in Colombia March 31 pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant the United States had requested. He remains in custody in Colombia pending further proceedings. A federal grand jury in Houston returned the superseding indictment April 8. According to the allegations, Flores is charged with one count of conspiring to provide material support to TdA in the form of personnel (including himself) and services and one count of providing material support to TdA. The indictment also alleges one count of international drug distribution conspiracy based on his involvement in the distribution of five kilograms of cocaine or more and two substantive counts of international drug distribution.The Department of State designated TdA as a foreign terrorist organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist Feb. 20. According to information presented to the court, Flores is a high-ranking TdA leader in Bogota, Colombia, and is part of the inner circle of senior TdA leadership. Flores also allegedly caused the delivery of approximately five kilograms or more of cocaine for international distribution, proceeds that were used to further TdA’s criminal goals.If convicted, he faces up to life in prison and a possible $10 million fine. The FBI and DEA conducted the investigation with the assistance of the Houston Police Department, Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Colombian National Police and the Colombian Attorney General’s Office (Fiscalía General de la Nación). The Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs and the Criminal Division’s Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section’s Office of Judicial Attaché in Bogotá, Colombia, provided significant assistance. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Casey N. MacDonald and Anibal J. Alaniz of the SDTX are prosecuting the case along with Deputy Director David C. Smith from the Department of Justice’s Joint Task Force Vulcan (JTFV). JTFV was created in 2019 to eradicate MS-13 and now expanded to target TdA and is comprised of U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country. Those include SDTX; Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; Northern District of Ohio; Districts of New Jersey, Utah, Massachusetts, Nevada and Alaska; Eastern District of Texas; Southern District of Florida; Eastern District of Virginia; Southern District of California; and the District of Columbia, as well as the Department of Justice’s National Security Division and the Criminal Division. Additionally, the FBI; DEA; Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Forearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; and Federal Bureau of Prisons have been essential law enforcement partners with JTFV.This case is also a part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Project Safe Neighborhood.An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Pennsylvania man pled guilty today to attempted coercion and enticement of a minor.According to court documents, on May 1, Keith Allen Pinkard, 67, of Middletown, sent a private message to another user on a social media platform, unaware that the other user was an undercover FBI special agent. Pinkard told the user that he was seeking “a new playmate” for an “ongoing adventure.” The two discussed their interests, including Pinkard’s interest in young girls, leading to discussion of the other user’s purported nine-year-old daughter. Pinkard expressed interest in meeting the other user in person and engaging in sex acts with the purported nine-year-old girl. Pinkard said he was ready to commit “to a regular thing” with the user and the purported child, and that he wanted to present the child with a gift before going to the child’s bedroom. Pinkard and the other user arranged to meet at a coffee shop the following week and then walk together to the other user’s residence, where the purported child would be waiting.On May 6, Pinkard arrived at the agreed upon location in Virginia, where he was arrested by FBI agents. In his vehicle were a gift bag containing a coloring book, colored pencils, and two packs of candy, as well as an Easter-themed basket with candy. He also had an image of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct on his cellphone.Pinkard is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 30. He faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years and up to life in prison. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Emily Odom, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office's Criminal and Cyber Division, made the announcement after U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema accepted the plea.Assistant U.S. Attorney Lauren Halper is prosecuting the case.This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District CourtLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACERLinks to other government and non-government sites will typically appear with the “external link” icon to indicate that you are leaving the Department of Justice website when you click the link. by searching for Case No. 1:25-cr-183.
