Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:24-cr-00979
Case Name:   USA v. Moreno
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rSGTG4QES_BRjfupi8Z6w93GNKGCFURRnKEUoz9s8yg
  Last Updated: 2024-11-17 09:12:37 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:19-po-60688
Case Name:   USA v. Dionicio-Miranda
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_RE4DEYRYtKCrl-KRTjK-AvMPEk0bo-QoQagNWyG1qU
  Last Updated: 2019-09-18 23:26:52 UTC
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  7:19-po-04287
Case Name:   USA v. Belloso-Zepeda
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1teEBslZqOYJCJMhnS8svCPY5ZisLlfPTDMS9BwD4uEA
  Last Updated: 2019-09-19 08:24:31 UTC
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:24-cr-00638
Case Name:   USA v. Muniz
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:24-mj-00609
Case Name:   USA v. Muniz
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:19-cr-00928
Case Name:   USA v. Segura-Jimenez
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iRy24otlu8-SetpTQJjtELB0GTcfCJuiVM_dOWy_46Y
  Last Updated: 2025-03-22 16:05:16 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:19-mj-01149
Case Name:   USA v. Segura-Jimenez
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Qzf23atFoEFqPA_ceHyk3ObsZGOxo_75lZ3wioTObp0
  Last Updated: 2025-03-22 12:55:36 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:23-cr-00544
Case Name:   USA v. Sanchez et al
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aiIacpvOJ_JQKo3rBEBjSzl1erc8kkBBNy30h60sWm4
  Last Updated: 2024-11-13 15:28:07 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:23-mj-00553
Case Name:   USA v. Sanchez et al Do not docket in Magistrate Case - Case merged into Criminal Case 1:23-cr-00544
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eoSjCqD3IWQt1AOnMCg1heXNiYfITNEI049yjJ3JDEw
  Last Updated: 2024-11-13 15:30:46 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:24-mj-00808
Case Name:   USA v. Moreno
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XVrBYLQENGHuARHl7aCBhT8f0ll59erKk-pE9T73Bv8
  Last Updated: 2024-07-27 21:02:27 UTC
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:24-cr-01378
Case Name:   USA v. Perez Sanchez
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:24-mj-01375
Case Name:   USA v. Perez Sanchez
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  4:08-mj-00758
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
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:24-mj-00431
Case Name:   USA v. Vela Salazar
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16AVtUPPernf0vJap3auiLB5SgR1jbKyaNNReyeV1880
  Last Updated: 2024-08-17 22:35:42 UTC
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:22-cr-00340
Case Name:   USA v. Leal et al
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VJBKICmUhXf1S3bnMm2h5OryHL9Vr-cRtzKubyplhzA
  Last Updated: 2024-11-10 03:15:18 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:22-mj-00362
Case Name:   USA v. Leal et al Do not docket in this case. Case merged into criminal case number (5:22CR340).
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lU7L25eT1EnIAzn_JeIQR_xskBmMeQ563MWBGBz7oug
  Last Updated: 2024-11-10 03:17:16 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: The 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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  4:18-mc-03286
Case Name:   VC Macon GA, LLC v. Virginia College, LLC
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  7:24-mj-02280
Case Name:   USA v. Villarreal-Dimas Do not docket in Magistrate Case - Case merged into Criminal Case 7:25-cr-00037
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:23-cr-00393
Case Name:   USA v. Cisneros Sandoval
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WMMTKHZhjDIvwzCPElkK8RoVAkDe0bJUTMqulGr4kiY
  Last Updated: 2024-11-13 14:11:30 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  1:23-mj-00391
Case Name:   USA v. Cisneros Sandoval
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15EQ31Ad5XQ8-XkAwcGe5oNmtuvh6EE7mFf1fWKKkXqw
  Last Updated: 2024-11-13 13:26:19 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL211bHRpcGxlLXNlbnRlbmNlcy1pbXBvc2VkLW1hc3NpdmUtc3ludGhldGljLW5hcmNvdGljcy1kaXN0cmlidXRpb24tbmV0d29yaw
  Press Releases:
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.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1kYy9wci9wcmV2aW91c2x5LWNvbnZpY3RlZC1zZXgtb2ZmZW5kZXItc2VudGVuY2VkLTExNC1tb250aHMtZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uLWNoaWxkLXNleHVhbC1hYnVzZQ
  Press Releases:
           WASHINGTON – Rashid Lamont McFadden, 29, of Baltimore, Maryland, was sentenced yesterday in U.S. District Court to 114 months in prison for distributing videos depicting the violent rape of prepubescent children by adults, images of young children engaged in sadistic and masochistic acts, and images of children engaging in sexual acts with animals.            The sentence was announced by U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., and FBI Special Agent in Charge Sean T. Ryan of the Washington Field Office Criminal and Cyber Division.           McFadden pleaded guilty on May 29, 2024, to one count of distribution of child pornography. In addition to the 141-month prison term, U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols ordered McFadden to serve 15 years of supervised release. ­­­          According to court documents, on February 16, 2023, an undercover officer (UC) from the FBI Washington Field Office was monitoring an online messaging application where individuals met, discussed, and traded sexually explicit images and videos of children. The UC observed an individual identified as “tng6” post a video of child sexual exploitation to the group. Shortly thereafter, tng6 responded to a conversation about meeting other likeminded pedophiles and their children. At that point, the UC initiated a private chat with tng6, who was later identified as McFadden.           As the UC chatted with McFadden, McFadden continued to post child sex videos to the group. McFadden told the UC that he knew the children in the videos and had produced some of the videos himself. The UC then claimed to be the father of an 8-year-old daughter and that he would show McFadden images of the purported girl on FaceTime.           On February 17, 2023, Baltimore Police arrested McFadden on an unrelated matter. On February 21, law enforcement executed a search warrant at McFadden’s home in Baltimore and seized McFadden’s cell phone. McFadden refused to provide the passcode for the phone. Law enforcement reviewed the contents of McFadden’s cloud storage account and found several videos and images of children being sexually abused by adults.           McFadden is currently facing additional criminal charges for possession of child pornography in a separate case pending in the Circuit Court for Maryland in Baltimore County.           This case was investigated by the FBI Washington Field Office’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force in cooperation with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Youth Division, and the Baltimore Police Department. The task force is composed of FBI agents, along with other federal agents and detectives from northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. The task force is charged with investigating and bringing federal charges against individuals engaged in the exploitation of children and those engaged in human trafficking.           The matter was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen Shinskie.           This case was brought as part of the Department of Justice's Project Safe Childhood initiative. In February 2006, the Attorney General created Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative designed to protect children from online exploitation and abuse. Led by the U.S. Attorney's Offices, 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 identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.23cr0165
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1kYy9wci93ZXN0LXZpcmdpbmlhLW1hbi1hcnJlc3RlZC1hc3NhdWx0aW5nLWxhdy1lbmZvcmNlbWVudC1hbmQtb3RoZXItY2hhcmdlcy1kdXJpbmctamFuLTY
  Press Releases:
            WASHINGTON — A West Virginia man has been arrested for allegedly assaulting law enforcement and other charges related to his alleged conduct during the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. His alleged actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020 presidential election.            Joseph Michael Adams, 41, of Hedgesville, West Virginia, is charged in a criminal complaint filed in the District of Columbia with a felony offense of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers.  In addition to the felony, Adams is charged with misdemeanor offenses of entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds, disorderly or disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, engaging in an act of physical violence in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building or grounds, engaging in an act of physical violence in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.            The FBI arrested Adams today in Martinsburg, West Virginia, and made his initial appearance in the Northern District of West Virginia.            According to court documents, on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., Adams was identified walking to the west side of the U.S. Capitol grounds within a large crowd of rioters. Adams eventually made his way toward the Northwest Lawn and later toward the east side of the Capitol. There, Adams approached the Rotunda Doors and entered into the Capitol building at approximately 3:01 p.m. wearing a motorcycle helmet and carrying a flag.               At approximately 3:00 p.m., multiple law enforcement officers entered the Rotunda and verbally commanded rioters to leave the building. It is alleged that Adams entered into the Rotunda at about 3:02 p.m. and resisted police efforts to clear the area of rioters. Court documents say that Adams is seen in body-worn camera footage resisting police attempts to push back the rioters in the Rotunda. At approximately 3:04 p.m., it is alleged that a police officer pushed Adams, and, in response Adams lowered his head and braced himself to resist being pushed further.            At about 3:05 p.m., police again attempted to push Adams back. Again, Adams allegedly lowered his head and forcibly pushed back against police. Adams then moved to his right and continued to use his head to push against another police officer. At approximately 3:06 p.m., Adams stepped back, creating space between himself and the line of police officers. He then continued to lower his head and hold the flagpole in front of him while facing police. Court documents say that throughout this time, officers are heard commanding the rioters to get back.            Only a few minutes later, it is alleged that Adams again used his head to push against police and repeatedly ignored commands to leave the area. Instead, Adams allegedly approached another police officer, lowered his shoulder, and forcibly pushed the officer with his shoulder. Court documents say that Adams continued to push against this police officer with his shoulder, head, and flagpole.            Adams exited the building at approximately 3:16 p.m. through the Rotunda doors.             This case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia.            This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Pittsburgh and Washington Field Offices. Adams was identified as BOLO (Be on the Lookout) #524 on the FBI’s seeking information images. Valuable assistance was provided by the United States Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department.                                                            In the 45 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,532 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 571 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing.            Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.            A complaint is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.   
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3RyZW4tZGUtYXJhZ3VhLW1lbWJlcnMtYXJyZXN0ZWQtZmVkZXJhbC1jaGFyZ2VzLWludGVybmF0aW9uYWwtZHJ1Zy1kaXN0cmlidXRpb24
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – Two Venezuelan nationals and alleged members of the recently designated foreign terrorist organization known as the Tren de Aragua (TdA) have been arrested on charges filed in the Southern District of Texas (SDTX), announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.Jesus Miguel Barreto Lezama, 29, who was residing in Houston, has now appeared in federal court in Houston.Also in custody is Briley Jesus Ballera Farias aka Derek, 32, who was arrested March 30 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where he made his initial appearance.A federal grand jury returned the indictment Jan. 29.  According to the allegations in the indictment, both men participated in a conspiracy, along with others, to import more than five kilograms of cocaine into the United States from Venezuela and Colombia. Barreto Lezama is also charged with importing nearly five kilograms of cocaine into the United States from Colombia between June 26, 2024, and July 3, 2024.If convicted, they face a up to life in federal prison and a possible $10 million maximum fine.The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) conducted the investigation with the assistance of the Colombian National Police. FBI-Houston’s Safe Streets Gang Task Force made the Houston arrest with the assistance of the Houston Police Department, DEA, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and U.S. Marshals Service.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Casey N. MacDonald and Anibal J. Alaniz are prosecuting the case along with Trial Attorney David C. Smith from the Department of Justice’s Joint Task Force Vulcan. This case 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 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.This case is also part of JTFV, which was created in 2019 to destroy MS-13 and now expanded to target TdA. It is comprised of U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country, including SDTX; Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; Districts of New Jersey, Utah, Massachusetts, Nevada, Alaska; Northern District of Ohio; 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, Firearms and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; and Federal Bureau of Prisons have been essential law enforcement partners and spearheaded JTFV’s investigations.An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2Zvcm1lci1vZmZpY2lhbC1zZXJ2ZS1wcmlzb24tdGltZS1jaGlsZC1wb3JuLWNvbnZpY3Rpb25z
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A 65-year-old resident of Seabrook has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of receipt and possession of child pornography, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick.

Ocal John Miller is a former law enforcement officer, having served as chief of police in Martinsville, West Virginia; and city councilman and mayor pro tem for Seabrook. He pleaded guilty Oct. 3, 2019. 

Today, U.S. District Judge Alfred Bennett ordered Miller to serve 120 months on each count to run concurrently. In handing down the sentence, the court noted that it should send a message to society. Judge Bennett further commented that unfortunately Miller is not the first nor will he be the last to stand before him having committed child pornography-related offenses. The court imposed a $50,000 fine as well as a $10,000 special assessment per the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Miller will also be required to pay restitution in an amount to be determined later and will serve 10 years on supervised release following completion of his prison term, during which time he will have to comply with numerous requirements designed to restrict his access to children and the internet. He must also register as a sex offender.

Miller came to the attention of law enforcement in June 2016 when the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) sent multiple cybertips to the Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

The investigation revealed Miller was using Skype to receive and distribute child pornography images to others via the internet. Miller also used Dropbox and Kik Messenger to obtain and store child pornography. Based on information gathered during the investigation, authorities executed a federal search warrant for Miller’s home in Seabrook March 30, 2017. At that time, they seized a computer, iPhone and several digital storage devices. Forensic examination resulted in the discovery of more than 1,300 images and 1,000 videos containing child pornography.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations and police departments in Webster and Pearland conducted the investigation as part of the Houston Metro Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sherri L. Zack is prosecuting the case, which was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood(PSC), a nationwide initiative the Department of Justice (DOJ) 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.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3ZhbGxleS1kcnVnLXRyYWZmaWNraW5nLW9yZ2FuaXplci1nZXRzLWxpZmUtcHJpc29u
  Press Releases:
BROWNSVILLE, Texas – A 40-year-old resident of Brownsville has been ordered to federal prison following his role in trafficking more than 1000 kilograms of cocaine involving $26 million in drug proceeds, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

The jury deliberated for less than three hours before convicting Rafael Villanueva Jan. 28, following a six-day trial.

Today, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., who presided over the trial and sentencing, ordered Villanueva to serve the rest of his life in federal prison. The court also ordered Villanueva to pay a $1,193,070 money judgment as repayment for the drug money he illegally laundered.

“This sentencing is the result of a long-term complex investigation lead by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies who continue to serve and protect our public and national security said Deputy Special Agent in Charge Timothy Tubbs of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). “HSI and our counterparts will continue to protect our nation from transnational criminal organizations that seek to bring harm to our communities and our nation.”

“The sentencing of Villanueva demonstrates how we focus investigative resources against drug trafficking organizations that import large shipments of hard drugs from Mexico then deliver them to cities throughout the United States,” said Special Agent in Charge Daniel C. Comeaux of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). “DEA and our partners remain determined to identify, dismantle and destroy drug trafficking organizations that import and spread their poison in cities across our nation.”

During trial, the jury heard from approximately 21 witnesses. They detailed Villanueva’s role as head of a drug transportation group that moved cocaine from the Rio Grande Valley and on to cities throughout the United States. He had customers in Mexico who needed transportation for cocaine to areas throughout the United States, including Houston; Chicago, Illinois; Jackson, Mississippi; as well as locations in South and North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

He also provided transportation for drug proceeds sold throughout the United States back to the Rio Grande Valley. The commercial vehicles were outfitted with special compartments to hide the cocaine and drug proceeds.

Several witnesses testified Villanueva hired them to move the cocaine north and the drug proceeds south. Villanueva paid them by the kilogram to transport the drugs and a percentage of the drug money coming south. Fellow drug traffickers also testified Villanueva borrowed their line of transport for the cocaine when commercial drivers he hired got arrested with loads of cocaine.

One of the witnesses was a young male who was only 16 when he started working for Villanueva.

The jury also heard about the search of Villanueva’s house where authorities found five guns and numerous documents showing his lavish lifestyle as well as several Lone Star cards. 

The defense attempted to convince the jury the witnesses were all liars and authorities did poor work.

The jury ultimately found him guilty as charged for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to do so, conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, bulk cash smuggling and international money laundering.

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

Several others have also been convicted for their respective roles.

HSI and DEA conducted the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) operation known as La Camelia. OCDETF identifies, disrupts and dismantles the highest-level criminal organizations that threaten the United States using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found on the Department of Justice’s OCDETF webpage.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen Betancourt, Jody Young and Paul Marian prosecuted the case. 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2ZpdmUtc2VudC1wcmlzb24tbmF0aW9ud2lkZS1mcmF1ZC1zY2hlbWUtdGFyZ2V0aW5nLWVsZGVybHktdmljdGltcw
  Press Releases:
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.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2xhc3QtaW5kaXZpZHVhbC1hZG1pdHMtcm9sZS1uYXRpb253aWRlLWZyYXVkLXNjaGVtZS10YXJnZXRpbmctZWxkZXJseS12aWN0aW1z
  Press Releases:
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.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZHZhL3ByL21lbWJlcnMtcHJvbGlmaWMtZmVudGFueWwtZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uLWNvbnNwaXJhY3ktc2VudGVuY2VkLXByaXNvbg
  Press Releases:
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Three Virginia men have been sentenced to prison for distributing copious quantities of fentanyl.According to court documents, from at least July 2023 through April 2024, Xavier Elijah Coltrane, aka X or Slime, 21, of Arlington; Vaughn Meachem, aka Vaughn Lockhart, 34, of Alexandria; and Cameron Harris, 24, of Gainesville, conspired to distribute fentanyl pills. Over a series of five controlled purchases conducted by the FBI, the conspirators sold approximately 65,000 fentanyl pills and a kilogram of cocaine.Coltrane was co-owner of Exquisite Luxury Transportation, a car service that Coltrane used to facilitate drug trafficking activity. Coltrane arranged the five drug sales, communicating through Instagram messaging, Telegram, and speaking directly on the phone. In some of the controlled purchases, the purchaser booked a reservation with Exquisite Luxury Transportation and was driven to a delivery location. Once the purchaser arrived at the deal location, Meachem arrived and distributed fentanyl pills. On one occasion, Coltrane distributed the fentanyl pills directly. On another occasion when Coltrane feared the use of cars through Exquisite Luxury Transportation was attracting law enforcement attention, Harris delivered the fentanyl pills in his personal vehicle.Coltrane, Meachem, and Harris each pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl and distribution of 400 grams or more of fentanyl. On Feb. 13, 2025, Coltrane was sentenced to 20 years in prison. On Dec.18, 2024, Harris was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Meachem was sentenced yesterday to 10 years in prison.Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Sean Ryan, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office's Criminal and Cyber Division, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr.The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division, Virginia State Police, and the Prince William County Police Department provided valuable assistance in the investigation of this case.This investigation is part of the Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking (HIDTA) Northern Virginia Gang Initiative, which seeks to identify, disrupt, and dismantle drug trafficking organizations and money laundering organizations; reduce drug-related crime and violence; and identify and respond to emerging drug trends.Assistant U.S. Attorneys Philip Alito, Catherine Rosenberg, and Ryan Bredemeier prosecuted 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-115.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3JpbmdsZWFkZXItc2VudC1wcmlzb24tbmF0aW9ud2lkZS1mcmF1ZC1zY2hlbWUtdGFyZ2V0aW5nLWVsZGVybHktdmljdGltcw
  Press Releases:
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. 

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZHZhL3ByL3VuaXRlZC1zdGF0ZXMtY2hhcmdlcy1mb3VyLW1hcmluZXJzLWFyYWJpYW4tc2VhLXZlc3NlbC10cmFuc3BvcnRpbmctc3VzcGVjdGVkLWlyYW5pYW4
  Press Releases:
RICHMOND, Va. – A criminal complaint was unsealed today charging four foreign nationals after U.S. naval forces interdicted a vessel in the Arabian Sea that was transporting suspected Iranian-made advanced conventional weaponry.

Two Navy SEALs lost their lives during the interdiction.

“The Justice Department extends our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the two Navy SEALs who lost their lives on January 11th while conducting an operation in the Arabian Sea,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The charges resulting from that interdiction make clear that the Justice Department will use every legal authority to hold accountable those who facilitate the flow of weapons from Iran to Houthi rebel forces, Hamas, and other groups that endanger the security of the United States and our allies.”

“The flow of missiles and other advanced weaponry from Iran to Houthi rebel forces in Yemen threatens the people and interests of America and our partners in the region,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. “Two Navy SEALs tragically lost their lives in the operation that thwarted the defendants charged today from allegedly smuggling Iranian-made weapons that the Houthis could have used to target American forces and threaten freedom of navigation and a vital artery for commerce. Alongside our partners around the world, the Justice Department will continue to deploy every available tool to combat this grave threat.”

“The FBI will aggressively investigate and disrupt the Iranian Government’s attempts to provide Houthi rebels with missile components that are intended for use against U.S. military ships, merchant vessels, and Israel,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray. “The defendants in this case allegedly transported suspected Iranian-made missile components for the type of weaponry used by the Houthi rebels in recent attacks. The FBI is committed to using its global partnerships to stop the illegal flow of weaponry that endangers U.S. national security.”

“As charged, Mr. Pahlawan attempted to smuggle advanced missile components, including a warhead, to Houthi rebels for use against cargo ships and U.S. vessels sailing across the Horn of Africa,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division. “The Justice Department, together with U.S. agency partners, is working tirelessly to deny malign actors the means to threaten international shipping and imperil the lives of our men and women in uniform.”

“The complaint alleges that the defendants were transporting weapons consistent with those used by Houthi rebel forces and then lied to the U.S. Coast Guard during the boarding of the vessel,” said U.S. Attorney Jessica D. Aber for the Eastern District of Virginia. “I want to thank the career prosecutors and our law enforcement partners for ensuring that the defendants now will face justice in an American court.”

“Today’s complaint sends a message that allegedly acting as a proxy for the IRGC in an effort to bring harm to U.S. persons overseas will not be tolerated by the U.S. Government,” said Assistant Director in Charge David Sundberg of the FBI Washington Field Office. “Transporting explosive materials intended to be used to threaten and cause harm is yet another example of the IRGC’s disruptive and hostile actions. The FBI and our U.S. Government partners will continue to disrupt efforts by hostile foreign governments seeking to intimidate and cause harm through violence.”

According to court records, on the night of Jan. 11, U.S. Central Command Navy forces operating from the USS LEWIS B. PULLER, including Navy SEALs and members of the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Security Response Team East, boarded an unflagged dhow, a small vessel, in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Somalia. As alleged, the U.S. boarding team encountered 14 individual mariners on the vessel.

During a search of the dhow, the U.S. boarding team allegedly located and seized what is believed to be Iranian-made advanced conventional weaponry. According to court records, preliminary analysis of the advanced conventional weaponry indicates that it includes critical components for medium range ballistic missiles (MRBM) and anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM), to include a warhead and propulsion and guidance components. The type of weaponry found aboard the dhow is allegedly consistent with the weaponry used by the Houthi rebel forces in recent attacks on merchant ships and U.S. military ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

According to court records, the Navy brought the fourteen mariners aboard the USS LEWIS B. PULLER after determining the dhow was unsafe and unseaworthy. On Feb. 11, the United States obtained arrest warrants for four of the mariners who were aboard the dhow – specifically, defendants Muhammad Pahlawan, Mohammad Mazhar, Ghufran Ullah, and Izhar Muhammad. Pakistani identification cards allegedly were found on the dhow for each of the four defendants. The United States also obtained ten material witness warrants for the remaining individuals aboard the vessel.

The defendants and material witnesses were transferred from the USS LEWIS B. PULLER to the Eastern District of Virginia. The four defendants and eight of the ten material witnesses made their initial appearances before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Richmond today.

Defendant Muhammad Pahlawan is charged with: (1) intentionally and unlawfully transporting on board the dhow a warhead, knowing the warhead would be used by the Houthi rebel forces against commercial and naval vessels in the Red Sea and surrounding waters; and (2) providing materially false information to U.S. Coast Guard officers during the boarding of the dhow regarding the vessel’s crew and cargo. Co-defendants Mohammad Mazhar, Ghufran Ullah, and Izhar Muhammad were also charged with providing materially false information to U.S. Coast Guard officers during the boarding of the dhow regarding the vessel’s crew and/or cargo.

Pahlawan faces a maximum of 20 years in prison if convicted of unlawfully transporting a warhead, and all four defendants face a maximum of five years in prison if convicted of the false statements offense. A federal district court judge will determine sentences after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Affidavit in support of criminal complaint

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, U.S. Attorney Jessica D. Aber for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Assistant Director in Charge David Sundberg of the FBI Washington Field Office made the announcement.

The FBI Washington Field Office and Naval Criminal Investigative Service are investigating the case, with significant assistance provided by the Department of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Navy, Department of Justice Office of International Affairs, Department of State, and Department of Homeland Security, including the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Troy A. Edwards Jr., John T. Gibbs, and Gavin R. Tisdale for the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Lesley Woods of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section are prosecuting 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 for the four charged defendants are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case Nos. 3:24-mj-16, 17, 18, and 19.

A criminal complaint is merely an accusation. The defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3JvbWFuaWFuLW1lbi1jb252aWN0ZWQtcm9sZS1hdG0tc2tpbW1pbmctY3Jldw
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – Two Romanian men have pleaded guilty for traveling to Houston to place card skimmers on ATMs and stealing money from bank accounts, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Abe Martinez.

 

Crisian Viorel Ciobanu, 30, of Romania, was part of a group that traveled to Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas to steal money from victims’ bank accounts. In each state, Ciobanu and his co-conspirators used card skimmers to steal ATM card numbers as customers inserted their cards into the machines. They also used hidden cameras to record customers as they entered their PINs.

 

Armed with this stolen data, they then made their own fake ATM cards. They then used those fake cards and stolen PINs to withdraw at least $390,495.84 from customer accounts. Bogdan Mirel Constantin, 40, of Romania, joined the group in Houston.

 

Ciobanu pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. He faces up to 7.5 years for the conspiracy as well as a mandatory two years for the identity theft which must be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed. Constantin pleaded guilty to theft aggravated identity theft and faces the same two mandatory years in federal prison. The charges also carry a possible $250,000 maximum fine. They have agreed to pay full restitution. 

 

Ciobanu’s sentencing has been set for Jan. 8, 2018, before U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein, while Constantin is set for Jan. 26, 2018. They will both remain in custody pending that hearing.

 

The FBI conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Chu is prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2RlbnRhbC1tYW5hZ2VtZW50LWNvbXBhbnktYmVuZXZpcy1hbmQtaXRzLWFmZmlsaWF0ZWQta29vbC1zbWlsZXMtZGVudGFsLWNsaW5pY3MtcGF5LTIzOQ
  Press Releases:
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that it has settled False Claims Act allegations against dental management company Benevis LLC (formerly known as NCDR LLC) and more than 130 of its affiliated Kool Smiles dental clinics for which Benevis provides business management and administrative services.  Under the agreement, Benevis and the Kool Smiles clinics will pay the United States and participating states a total of $23.9 million, plus interest, to resolve allegations that they knowingly submitted false claims for payment to state Medicaid programs for medically unnecessary dental services performed on children insured by Medicaid.       

“Billing Medicaid programs for dental procedures that are not necessary contributes to the soaring costs of healthcare,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “When healthcare providers put vulnerable patients at risk by performing medically unnecessary procedures to achieve financial goals, we will take action.”   

The United States alleged that between January 2009 and December 2011, Benevis and Kool Smiles clinics located throughout 17 states knowingly submitted false claims to state Medicaid programs for medically unnecessary pulpotomies (baby root canals), tooth extractions, and stainless steel crowns, in addition to seeking payment for pulpotomies that were never performed.  The United States alleges that Kool Smiles clinics routinely pressured and incentivized dentists to meet production goals through a system that disciplined “unproductive” dentists and awarded “productive” dentists with substantial cash bonuses based on the revenue generated by the procedures they performed.  According to the government’s allegations, Kool Smiles clinics ignored complaints from their own dentists regarding overutilization.  In addition, the United States further alleged that Kool Smiles clinics located in Texas knowingly submitted false claims to the Texas Medicaid Program for First Dental Home (FDH), a program intended to provide a comprehensive package of dental services aimed at improving the oral health of children under three years of age.  These clinics are alleged to have submitted false claims for FDH services that were not fully provided.  

Of the $23.9 million to be paid by Benevis and its affiliated Kool Smiles clinics, the federal government will receive a total of $14,244,073.49, plus interest, and a total of $9,655,926.51, plus interest, will be returned to individual states, which jointly funded improper claims submitted to state Medicaid programs.     

"The allegations in these cases are particularly egregious because they involved medically unnecessary dental services performed on children,” said U.S. Attorney John H. Durham for the District of Connecticut.  “Exploiting needy children for financial gain is inexcusable.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Connecticut is committed to aggressively pursuing health care providers that submit fraudulent claims to government health care programs.”

The government’s investigation was initiated by five lawsuits filed under the whistleblower provision of the False Claims Act, which permits private citizens to file suit on behalf of the United States for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery.  These cases are currently pending in the District of Connecticut and the Western District of Texas.  As part of today’s resolution, three of the whistleblowers—former Kool Smiles employees Adam Abendano, Poonam Rai, and Robin Fitzgerald—will receive payments totaling more than $2.4 million from the federal share of the settlement. 

“When providers accept federal funds for reimbursement, they have a duty and responsibility to provide the best care possible to the patient, especially when their patients are economically disadvantaged children,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick for the Southern District of Texas. “The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas will aggressively prosecute healthcare providers who fail to provide care as required when it adversely affects the taxpayers.”

“The conduct of Kool Smiles reached across state lines to impact many patients, many of them vulnerable children,” said U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente for the Eastern District of Virginia. “I want to thank our law enforcement partners for their tireless effort and dedication in bringing about this nationwide resolution.”

“Today’s settlement sends a very clear signal:  Fraud in the federal healthcare system will not be tolerated,” said U.S. Attorney John F. Bash for the Western District of Texas. “Especially when that fraud involves performing unnecessary procedures on kids—here, unnecessary baby root canals and tooth extractions, among other procedures—we will not hesitate to use every tool at our disposal to punish those who break the law.”

“It is intolerable when health care companies seek to boost profits by defrauding Medicaid and exploiting children," said Special Agent in Charge Phillip M. Coyne, HHS-OIG. "Systematically performing and billing for medically unnecessary dental procedures undermines the well-being of these young patients, corrupts the impartiality of medical decision-making, and diverts money from taxpayer-funded health care programs designed to pay for legitimate medical needs.”

The settlement with Benevis and its affiliated Kool Smiles clinics was the result of a collaborative effort among federal and state agencies.  The Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the District of Connecticut, Southern District of Texas, Eastern District of Virginia, and Western District of Texas handled the cases, with substantial assistance from the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (NAMFCU).  The Civil Division and NAMFCU coordinated the nationwide investigation, which was conducted by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and NAMFCU.          

The cases are captioned United States, et al., ex rel. Abendano v. NCDR, LLC, et al., 3:10-cv-1100 (JBA) (D. Conn.); United States, et al., ex rel. Greenwald v. Kool Smiles Dentistry PC, et al., 3:10-cv-1100 (JBA) (D. Conn.); United States, et al., ex rel. Rai, et al. v. Kool Smiles Dentistry PC, et al., 3:17-cv-834 (JBA) (D. Conn.); United States, et al., ex rel. Bowne v. KS-VAP, PC, et al., 3:16-cv-369 (JBA) (D. Conn.); and United States, et al., ex rel. Alves, et al. v. NCDR, LLC, et al., SA-13-CV-0760H (W.D. Tex.).  The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.  

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2p1cnktY29udmljdHMtaGVhZC1kcnVnLXRyYWZmaWNraW5nLWdyb3Vw
  Press Releases:
BROWNSVILLE, Texas – A federal jury has returned guilty verdicts on all counts against a 40-year-old Brownsville man for his role in trafficking more than 1000 kilograms of cocaine involving $26 million in drug proceeds, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick.

The jury deliberated for less than three hours before convicting Rafael Villanueva following a six-day trial.

During trial, the jury heard from approximately 21 witnesses. They detailed Villanueva’s role as head of a drug transportation group that moved cocaine from the Rio Grande Valley and on to cities throughout the United States. He had customers in Mexico who needed transportation for cocaine to areas throughout the United States, including Houston; Chicago, Illinois; Jackson, Mississippi; as well as locations in South and North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.

He also provided transportation for drug proceeds sold throughout the United States back to the Rio Grande Valley. The commercial vehicles were outfitted with special compartments to hide the cocaine and drug proceeds.

Several witnesses testified Villanueva hired them to move the cocaine north and the drug proceeds south. Villanueva paid them by the kilogram to transport the drugs and a percentage of the drug money coming south. Fellow drug traffickers also testified Villanueva borrowed their line of transport for the cocaine when commercial drivers Villanueva hired got arrested with loads of cocaine.

One of the witnesses was a young male who was only 16 when he started working for Villanueva.

The jury also heard about the search of Villanueva’s house where authorities found five guns and numerous documents showing his lavish lifestyle as well as several Lone Star cards. 

The defense attempted to convince the jury the witnesses were all liars and authorities did poor work.

The jury ultimately found him guilty as charged for possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and conspiracy to do so, conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, bulk cash smuggling and international money laundering.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. presided over the trial and set sentencing for May 4, 2020. At that time, Villanueva faces up to life in prison. He will remain in custody pending that hearing.

Several others have also been convicted for their respective roles.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations and Drug Enforcement Administration conducted the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force operation known as La Camelia. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Karen Betancourt, Jody Young and Paul Marian are prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3JvbWFuaWFuLW1lbi1vcmRlcmVkLXByaXNvbi1yb2xlcy1hdG0tc2tpbW1pbmctY3Jldw
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – Three Romanian men have been ordered to prison for their roles in the placement of card skimmers on ATMs and stealing money from bank accounts, announced U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick. Cristian Viorel Ciobanu, 31, Bogdan Mirel Constantin, 34, both of Romania, pleaded guilty Oct. 27, 2017. A third defendant – Daniel Marius Muraretu, 40, also of Romania – entered his plea Jan. 26, 2018.

Ciobanu pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. Today, U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. ordered him to serve 42 months for the fraud in addition to another two years for the identity theft which must be served consecutively for a total of 66 months in federal prison.

Constantin pleaded guilty to theft aggravated identity theft and received a mandatory two years in prison, while Muraretu received 37 months for his conviction of the conspiracy charge. They were all also ordered to pay restitution of $390,487.64

At the hearing, Ciobanu told the court he had made a mistake. In handing down Ciobanu’s sentence, Judge Werlein noted that he had committed one crime after another after another in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas and then California. “You did not just make a mistake. This was not just a matter of you bumping into someone,” Werlein said. “You claim you are a good man – but this is not the mark of a good man.”

Ciobanu, Muraretu and Constantin were part of a group that traveled to the United States and then to Pennsylvania, Virginia and Texas to steal money from victims’ bank accounts. Further, after fleeing arrest in 2016, Ciobanu was arrested in 2017, apparently committing the same crimes in California. 

In each state, the co-conspirators used card skimmers to steal ATM card numbers as customers inserted their cards into the machines. They also used hidden cameras to record customers as they entered their PINs.  Armed with this stolen data, they then made their own fake ATM cards. They then used those fake cards and stolen PINs to withdraw at least $390,495.84 from customer accounts. Constantin joined the group in Houston. 

All have been and remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.

The FBI conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Chu is prosecuting the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZHZhL3ByL2ZhbGxzLWNodXJjaC1tYW4tY29udmljdGVkLWhhdGUtY3JpbWUtYXR0ZW1wdGVkLWNodXJjaC1zaG9vdGluZw
  Press Releases:
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – After a four-day trial, a federal jury returned a guilty verdict today for Rui Jiang, of Falls Church, who was charged with attempting to obstruct the congregants of a church in Haymarket in the free exercise of their religious beliefs. The charge included that the defendant’s attempted act involved a dangerous weapon and an attempt to kill. Jiang also faced charges for transmitting online threats and a firearms violation. The jury found Jiang guilty on all counts.According to evidence presented at trial, Jiang began posting online threats against the church on the evening of Sept. 23, 2023, which made clear his intention to kill congregants.On the morning of Sept. 24, 2023, police began searching for Jiang in response to a concerned citizen’s call about his posts. Police officers located Jiang inside the front entrance to the church while Sunday services were underway. Church volunteers, independently concerned about Jiang’s behavior, had just approached Jiang when police arrived. Jiang was armed with a semiautomatic handgun and two full magazines of ammunition. He had an additional 34 rounds of ammunition in his nearby car.During a search of Jiang’s apartment, police discovered five copies of a letter, each signed by Jiang in ink, which read in part, “To the families of those men about to be slain – I am sorry for what I have done and about to do (sic).”Jiang was arrested by Prince William County Police on Sept. 24, 2023, and has been in custody since that time.Jiang faces a mandatory minimum of five years and up to life in prison when sentenced on June 18. 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; Mac Warner, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division; and Roman Rozhavsky, Acting Assistant Director in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington Field Office, made the announcement after U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. accepted the verdict.The FBI investigated the case with substantial assistance from the Prince William County and Fairfax County Police Departments. The Anne Arundel County Police Department also provided assistance.Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nicholas A. Durham and Troy A. Edwards Jr. for the Eastern District of Virginia and Trial Attorney Kyle Boynton of the Civil Division’s Criminal Section are prosecuting 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-65.
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2hvdXN0b24tYXJlYS1yZXNpZGVudHMtY2hhcmdlZC1uYXJjb3RpY3MtYW5kLWZpcmVhcm1zLXRyYWZmaWNraW5nLW9uZ29pbmctY3JpbWU
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON– A total of 20 people are now in custody in the newest charges brought as part of the Department of Justice’s Houston Violent Crime Initiative.

A federal grand jury returned six separate, but related indictments at varying times between July 31-Aug. 22. Of the 17 arrested this week, all have made initial appearances with detention hearings set for Sept. 3 and 4 before U.S. Magistrate Judges Christina Bryan and Yvonne Ho, respectively. The remaining three had previously been in custody on related charges and are expected to make initial appearances before a U.S. magistrate judge in the near future.

The charges allegedly encompass over 30 firearms, meth and more than 15 kilograms of cocaine, collectively. In connection with this week’s arrests, law enforcement executed search warrants that resulted in the seizure of 10 firearms, $26,000 in cash as well as cocaine and crack cocaine.

A total of 15 are charged in two of the indictments with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances as well as multiple substantive counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Some are also charged with illegal possession of firearms and/or criminal possession of a machine gun - a firearm altered with a machine gun conversion device aka switch to fire automatically with one pull of the trigger. One faces a charge of maintaining drug premises.

These indictments are the latest of 23 charging 77 people as a result of the Criminal Division’s Houston Violent Crime Initiative, first announced in September 2022.

This joint effort includes the U.S. Attorney’s Office and local, state and federal law enforcement addresses violent crime by employing, where appropriate, federal laws to prosecute gang members in the southwest and southeast areas of Houston. As part of the initiative, the Criminal Division has dedicated attorneys and other resources to prosecuting violent offenders and assisting intervention, prevention and reentry efforts to address the root causes of violent crime, such as narcotics trafficking. The Office of Justice Programs provides some of the funding for this effort.

If convicted in the drug conspiracies, 15 face up to life in prison as well as varying terms for the substantive counts up to life. Being a felon in possession of a firearm carries a possible 15-year-term of imprisonment, while possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime could result in a consecutive term of at least five years and up to life in prison.

The FBI, Houston Police Department and Texas Department of Public Safety conducted the investigation with assistance from Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Office of Inspector General; police departments in Sugar Land, Missouri City, Pasadena and Pearland; Texas Anti-Gang Center; Texas Highway Patrol; Virginia State Police and departments in Newport News (Virginia), Cincinnati (Ohio) and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport; Sheriff’s Offices in Brazoria, Walker, Madison, Harris, Ft. Bend and Boyd (Kentucky) Counties; District Attorney’s Offices in Harris and Ft. Bend counties; Drug Enforcement Administration; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Anh-Khoa Tran of the Southern District of Texas (SDTX) is prosecuting the case along with Trial Attorneys Amy L. Schwartz, George Meggali and Shriram Harid of the Justice Department’s Violent Crime and Racketeering Section. SDTX AUSA John Ganz and Trial Attorney Adam Tisdall of the Justice Department’s Fraud Section also provided assistance.

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1kYy9wci92aXJnaW5pYS1mYXRoZXItYW5kLXNvbi1wbGVhZC1ndWlsdHktYXNzYXVsdGluZy1sYXctZW5mb3JjZW1lbnQtZGVhZGx5LW9yLWRhbmdlcm91cw
  Press Releases:
            WASHINGTON – A father and son from Virginia both pleaded guilty today to felony charges related to their actions during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Their actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020 presidential election.

            Farhad Azari, 63, and Farbod Azari, 32, both of Richmond, VA, pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia to one count of civil disorder and one count of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers with a deadly or dangerous weapon. Farhad is the father of Farbod Azari. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth will sentence the pair on May 21, 2024.

            According to court documents, on Jan. 6, 2021, the two men traveled from Richmond, VA, to Washington, D.C., to protest Congress' certification of the Electoral College vote. The two made their way to the West Front and West Plaza of the Capitol grounds and moved to the front of a group of rioters. At approximately 1:13 p.m., while other rioters dismantled sections of the fencing at the foot of the steps, Farbod approached a section of the fencing, gestured at the line of police officers, spat in their direction, and retreated into the crowd. Several seconds later, Farbod approached the fencing again and threw a water bottle at the officers.

            Meanwhile, Farhad engaged with officers defending the police line multiple times. First, he threw a water bottle at officers in the police line. Shortly after that, at about 1:14 p.m., he rushed police as Metropolitan Police Department officers arrived on the scene to reestablish the police line broken earlier by rioters. Farhad kicked a bike rack and then joined with other rioters in pushing the rack back against police officers in a clear attempt to break the newly established line.

            At approximately 1:18 p.m., Farbod joined other rioters in dismantling a section of the black fencing at the base of the West Plaza steps by kicking and pulling at it, using his foot to kick at and stomp on the gate until it was flat on the ground.

            Approximately 30 minutes later, Farhad confronted a line of police officers on the north side of the West Plaza, near the foot of a set of stairs leading to the Upper West Terrace of the Capitol. Farhad had begun to yell at the officers and attempted to kick an object on the ground in the direction of the police. When that failed, Farhad picked up a flagpole and hurled it at the line of officers. Shortly after he threw the flagpole, Farhad obtained an air horn and threw that, too, toward officers.

            At about 2:00 p.m., Farbod joined a crowd of rioters under the scaffolding erected over the Northwest stairs—a set of steps leading from the north side of the West Plaza of the Capitol to the north side of the Upper West Terrace. As other rioters attempted to break through the metal bike-rack barricades guarded by United States Capitol Police (USCP) officers, Farbod waved a flag and used it to jab at the line of USCP officers, making physical contact with one officer's arm. At about 2:09 p.m., the rioters breached the barricades and surged up the Northwest stairs towards the Capitol. Farbod, at the front of the group, chased retreating officers up the stairs.

            At approximately 2:14 p.m., Farhad entered the U.S. Capitol building via the Senate Wing Doors through a broken window. Farhad was one of the first rioters to enter the Capitol during the first breach of the Senate Wing Doors. Farhad proceeded toward the Crypt and, while inside, attempted to direct rioters to rush the police line that had formed there to prevent further incursion into the Capitol. He exited the building at approximately 2:35 p.m. via the same broken Senate Wing Door window from which he entered.

            At about 2:46 p.m., Farhad reentered the Capitol building via the Parliamentarian Doors and entered an office. He then exited via the Parliamentarian Doors at about 2:50 p.m. On his way out, Farhad encouraged other rioters to enter the Parliamentarian Door.

            Meanwhile, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Farbod rushed to the north side of the Upper West Terrace, where police officers had formed a line between rioters and the building. Farbod attempted to break through the line of officers by pushing his shoulder into an officer standing between him and the Capitol building. An officer pushed Farbod back into the crowd, and Farbod threw a water bottle at the line of officers. Moments later, Farbod picked up a flagpole, raised it behind his head, took several steps towards the line of police officers, and swung it towards the officers. He then retreated several feet and held the flagpole like a spear before he threw it at the line of officers.

            FBI agents arrested the pair on Jan. 18, 2023, in Virginia.

            This case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Department of Justice National Security Division's Counterterrorism Section. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

            This case is being investigated by the FBI's Richmond and Washington Field Offices, which identified Farbod Azari as #187 on its seeking information photos. Valuable assistance was provided by the U.S. Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department.

            In the 36 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,265 individuals have been charged in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 440 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, a felony. The investigation remains ongoing.

            Anyone with tips can call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or visit tips.fbi.gov.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:20-cr-00008
Case Name:   USA v. Perez
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON - A total of 47 people are now in custody following the return of a 43-count indictment alleging drug-trafficking and related crimes in the Houston and Galveston areas. The case will be prosecuted in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas. 

U.S. Attorney Ryan K. Patrick made the announcement along with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agent in Charge Will R. Glaspy, Special Agent in Charge Mark Dawson of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Chief Vernon Hale of the Galveston Police Department (GPD), Special Agent in Charge Designee Brett Rovey of Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigation (CI) and Deputy U.S. Marshal Alfredo Perez of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).

The arrests are the culmination of 31-month Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force investigation (OCDETF) dubbed Operation Wrecking Ball. 

“This operation is the result of countless hours of hard work by officers and agents from many different agencies,” said Patrick. “OCDETF is uniquely able to marshal resources for complex cases. The Department of Justice is committed to disrupting the work of international cartels and other drug trafficking organizations. This case also is reinvigorating my office’s commitment to Galveston. For the first time in decades, we have a full time prosecutor on the island who is focused on cases that will have a local impact in Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston and Matagorda counties.”

During the law enforcement operation today and yesterday that spanned multiple jurisdictions and states, authorities took a total of 43 people into custody.  They join the four individuals who were previously in custody. Nine are considered fugitives and warrants remain outstanding for their arrests. 

“Today’s enforcement operation marks the culmination of a 3 ½ year investigation targeting one of the largest suspected drug organizations seen in Southeast Texas in decades,” said Glaspy. “The success of this investigation was possible only because of the many law enforcement agencies dedicated to protecting our communities in the greater Houston/Galveston area from those who prey on them.”

The indictment, which was returned in November 2018 and unsealed today, alleges the defendants engaged in a variety of cocaine and heroin transactions. Some also allegedly conspired to commit money laundering and illegally transferred money to avoid reporting requirements.

The charges allege the crimes occurred between Feb. l, 2016, and April 19, 2018. According to the indictment, the drugs were smuggled into the United States from Colombia and Mexico. Heroin and Cocaine was then distributed through Houston to Atlanta, Georgia; Buffalo and New York, N.Y.; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Norfolk, Virginia.

This case is a clear example of the kind of federal matters we are bringing to the Galveston Division

The indictment also seeks forfeiture of any illegal proceeds of the alleged crimes. To date, approximately $3.1 million has been seized.

Those arrested are expected to make initial appearances before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison in Houston beginning at 10:00 a.m. March 21, 2019.

The DEA conducted the investigation along with HSI, Houston Police Department, IRS-CI, USMS, GPD and Galveston County Sheriff’s Office with assistance of the Texas National Guard Joint Counterdrug Task Force. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Cusick is prosecuting the case.

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

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

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZQJAzZYxh75aHlyVteeUt4-AdzzvHVnyNEjuEkZU0Ps
  Last Updated: 2025-03-30 21:57:16 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   SD-TX  5:19-mj-03377
Case Name:   USA v. Perez
Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IMdkuX_JtocIu9NkdWyx0wvjaP2CmJrlkDEQWVANu9Y
  Last Updated: 2025-03-23 13:36:29 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

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

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

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

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1lZHZhL3ByL3JpY2htb25kLW1hbi1zZW50ZW5jZWQtZm91ci15ZWFycy1wcmlzb24tdHJhZmZpY2tpbmctY29jYWluZS1hbmQtZmVudGFueWwtMTktZGF5cw
  Press Releases:
RICHMOND, Va. – A Richmond man was sentenced today to four years in prison for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and cocaine.

According to court documents, on Sept. 24, 2023, a Virginia State Police (VSP) trooper observed Jayquan Jermaine Harris, 30, run a red light and attempted a traffic stop. Harris accelerated, driving approximately 65 miles per hour in a residential area in the rain. Harris continued to flee for over 13 miles, driving more than double the speed limit, running stop signs, backing into the police car, and traveling on the wrong side of the road.

Harris eventually entered I-95 northbound, traveling at over 100 miles per hour before running into the median and striking a wall. After the vehicle came to a stop, the trooper approached the car and observed a plastic bag containing suspected narcotics between the cupholders and the right passenger seat. The suspected drugs were tested and confirmed to be 5.59 grams of a solid containing cocaine, 7.73 grams of powder containing cocaine, and 9.31 grams of powder containing fentanyl.

In 2021, as law enforcement performed a traffic stop of a vehicle, Harris and another passenger exited the vehicle and fled. Officers found a bag in the backseat of the car with 10 grams of crack cocaine, 17 grams of heroin, 20 grams of marijuana, and Harris’ identification card. Harris was convicted in February 2023 of two counts of possession with intent to distribute Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances. Harris was in custody until Sept. 5, 2023, less than three weeks before he committed the offense for which he was sentenced today.

Jessica D. Aber, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; James VanVliet, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division; Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General of Virginia; and Colonel Gary T. Settle, Virginia State Police Superintendent, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jessica L. Wright and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Ellen Hubbard, an Assistant Attorney General with the Virginia Attorney General’s Office, prosecuted 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. 3:24-cr-54.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3NleC1vZmZlbmRlci1zZW50ZW5jZWQtNTAteWVhcnMtcHJpc29uLXNleHVhbGx5LWV4cGxvaXRpbmctbWlub3JzLXVzaW5nLWZhY2Vib29r
  Press Releases:
McALLEN, Texas – A 35-year-old Virginia resident has been sentenced for the sexual exploitation of children in the McAllen area, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

Michael Tienping Tang pleaded guilty May 22, 2019.

Chief U.S. District Judge Randy Crane has now ordered Tang to serve 600 months in federal prison. At the hearing, the court heard additional evidence including how victims of these schemes frequently feel deep fear and shame and often delay in reporting the conduct. In this case, however, Judge Crane heard how two minor victims ultimately came forward and exposed Tang’s crimes.

The court handed down the prison term, noting Tang’s prior sex convictions and the fact that Tang committed this current scheme while under supervision for those prior cases. In addition, the court noted Tang’s use of social media to stalk his victims, their friends and family, as well as Tang’s use of multiple accounts to coerce over 50 victims into engaging in sexually explicit acts at his request. Tang will serve the rest of his life on supervised release following completion of his prison term. During that time, he will be required to comply with numerous requirements designed to restrict his access to children and the internet. Tang will also be ordered to register as a sex offender.



“Tang, a child predator, weaponized Facebook to serve his sick and depraved desires,” said Hamdani. “He used the common social media app to target, exploit and extort our most precious and vulnerable asset, our children. Today’s sentence shrinks Tang’s social circle shaped by the vastness of an online world to the restrictive confines of a federal penitentiary.”



“The abuse and exploitation of children is deeply cruel and violates the trust and safety of the victims. It generates trauma that may not heal. We hope today’s sentence provides some measure of justice to those he harmed,” said Special Agent in Charge Craig S. Larrabee, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) San Antonio. “Fortunately, he will spend the next 50 years in prison where he cannot harm another child. We will seek the same lengthy sentence for anyone who seeks to take advantage of children in our communities.”

The investigation revealed Tang utilized Facebook to coerce and entice minor children to produce child pornography. Tang’s requests frequently included bestiality and would demand minor victims with younger siblings to produce images and videos engaging in sexually explicit conduct with their younger siblings.

The investigation began in May 2017 when authorities learned about the possible online sexual exploitation of two minor victim students within a local school district. Law enforcement discovered Tang coerced them into producing and sending images and videos depicting themselves engaging in sexually explicit conduct to his Facebook profile. When the victims blocked Tang on Facebook, he created new accounts, communicated and interacted with the victim’s Facebook friends and contacts and regained access to them. After regaining access, Tang coerced both victims to engage in a list of sexual activities by threatening to disseminate their images and videos.

A federal search warrant of Tang’s Facebook account revealed over 50 potential minor victims who had sent and/or received child pornography.

Authorities identified a third minor victim who Tang coerced to produce and send images and videos depicting themselves engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Tang further coerced this minor victim to produce a video using a younger fourth victim’s hand for sexually explicit conduct. When the minor victim did not meet Tang’s deadline to produce an additional video engaging in oral sex with the younger minor victim, Tang distributed the minor victim’s video.

Tang was previously convicted in 2012 of two separate child exploitation offenses including attempted indecent liberties with a child and two counts of possession of child pornography in Virginia.

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

HSI Rio Grande Valley Child Exploitation Investigations Task Force conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorneys James Sturgis and Alexa D. Parcell prosecuted the case, which was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood (PSC), a nationwide initiative the Department of Justice (DOJ) 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.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL291dC1zdGF0ZS1tYW4tYWRtaXRzLXNtdWdnbGluZy1pcmFuLW5hdGlvbmFscw
  Press Releases:
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.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL2ZvdXItY28tY29uc3BpcmF0b3JzLWNoYXJnZWQtYmFuay1mcmF1ZA
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – The final of four charged in connection with the theft of $200,000 from a bank in Houston and allegedly transferred to New York has turned herself in to authorities, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

Janem Gibbs, 50, Missouri City, is expected to make her initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison at 2 p.m. today.

Arrested Friday, Feb. 24, were Munson P. Hunter III aka Paul Hunter, 48, Rosedale, New York, Gregory Thurman, 52, Richmond, and Travis Deon Wright, 51, Missouri City.

Hunter was arrested in New York where he made his appearance, while Thurman and Wright appeared in Houston.

Hunter, Thurman, Wright and Gibbs are charged with the theft of $200,000. The charges allege Gibbs was a former assistant branch manager at Capital One N.A. in Houston. She allegedly wire transferred money from a customer’s account at Capital One without his knowledge to an account at a New York City bank.

Hunter, Thurman and Wright were also charged with wire fraud for moving the stolen money through a series of other accounts at banks in New York, Virginia and Texas. The accounts were opened using fictitious names, according to the charges.

All four are charged with bank fraud. All but Gibbs are also charged with two counts of wire fraud. If convicted, each faces up to 30 years in prison and a possible $1 million maximum fine on each count.

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

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

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByLzE1bS1zaG9wcGluZy1zcHJlZS1sb2NhbC1tYW4taW1wcmlzb25lZC1pbGxlZ2FsLXVzZS1zdG9sZW4tY3JlZGl0LWNhcmQtaW5mb3JtYXRpb24
  Press Releases:
HOUSTON – A 34-year-old Missouri City man has been ordered to federal prison for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and identity theft, announced U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani.

Emmanuel Babajide Awolaja pleaded guilty Nov. 3, 2023.

U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein Jr. has now ordered Awolaja to serve 138 months for the conspiracy as well as another 24 months for the aggravated identity theft which must be served consecutively. The total 162-month prison term will be immediately followed by three years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $263,955.73 in restitution to the victims which included local merchants.

At the hearing, the court heard additional evidence that determined Awolaja was responsible for more than $1.5 million in losses. In handing down the sentence, the court noted Awolaja’s criminal history dated back almost 20 years with this being his 13th felony offense. Judge Werlein noted how the previous sentences have not deterred him from criminal activity, and the court was imposing this sentence to protect the public from his continued criminal recidivism. 

Awolaja and Tia Nicole Chavis came into possession of credit card information for numerous Chase Bank customers along with personal identifying information of various individuals.

From February 2021 until October 2023, Chavis agreed to help Awolaja use the unlawfully obtained credit card information to purchase expensive jewelry, hotel rooms, rental cars, meals and various other goods or services. 

When they would first attempt to use the cards, the charges would be denied. However, Awolaja and Chavis persuaded merchants to manually enter the card numbers which typically resulted in approval, ultimately causing substantial loss for the merchants. 

The investigation revealed Awolaja used the stolen account information to make purchases in Iowa, Virginia and several other states. 

The scheme unraveled May 19, 2021, when they attempted to fraudulently purchase a $14,000 watch at Tomball Pawn and Jewelry. Law enforcement then worked with merchants throughout the country to identify Chavis and Awolaja from store video in other transactions. 

Chavis, 32, Houston, also pleaded guilty and it set for sentencing April 12.

Both have been and will remain in custody.

The Secret Service conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Hileman prosecuted the case.

Score:   0.5
Docket Number:   aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuanVzdGljZS5nb3YvdXNhby1zZHR4L3ByL3RocmVlLW5pZ2VyaWFuLW5hdGlvbmFscy1leHRyYWRpdGVkLXVuaXRlZC1zdGF0ZXMtdW5pdGVkLWtpbmdkb20tcGFydGljaXBhdGluZy1idXNpbmVzcw
  Press Releases:
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.

F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E