Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that YESSENIA JIMENEZ, an officer in the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), was found guilty today of conspiring to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, possession of heroin and fentanyl, and using a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. A unanimous jury convicted JIMENEZ on all three counts after a one-week trial before United States District Judge Valerie E. Caproni.
U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As proven at trial, Yessenia Jimenez, an NYPD officer, trafficked heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine in New York City, a city she took an oath to serve and protect, and used her NYPD service firearm to carry out her drug dealing. Simply put, Jimenez was a drug dealer in a cop’s uniform. Thankfully, Jimenez now stands convicted and faces at least 15 years in prison.”
According to court documents and the evidence at trial:
This case arises from a Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) investigation into a large-scale narcotics trafficking operation that brought heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine across the border from Mexico into the United States, and then into New York City. From at least June 2017 through March 2018, JIMENEZ, an NYPD officer, participated in the conspiracy. JIMENEZ used her apartment in the Bronx, New York, to store multiple kilograms of heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine that were brought into the city by other members of the conspiracy. Along with other co-conspirators, JIMENEZ distributed these drugs in New York and also in the Boston area. Over the course of the conspiracy, she collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug profits, which she also stored in her apartment, and delivered large amounts of cash to other co-conspirators to bring back to drug suppliers in Mexico. On March 13, 2018, the DEA and NYPD apprehended JIMENEZ and a co-conspirator as they returned to her apartment carrying approximately $52,000 in U.S. currency, which represented the proceeds from narcotics transactions in Boston. JIMENEZ, who was not in uniform and was off duty, was carrying her loaded NYPD service firearm in her purse, alongside approximately $25,000 of the drug proceeds. At the time of her arrest, JIMENEZ lied to law enforcement, telling them she was “on the job,” meaning on official NYPD business at the time. Following the arrest, law enforcement agents obtained a search warrant for JIMENEZ’s apartment and discovered approximately 250 grams of heroin and fentanyl.
* * *
JIMENEZ, 32, of the Bronx, New York, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin and fentanyl, and at least five kilograms of cocaine, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison, one count of possession of at least 100 grams of heroin and fentanyl with intent to distribute, which carries a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of narcotics trafficking, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the investigative work of the DEA, NYPD, and New York State Police in this investigation.
This case is being handled by the Office’s Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Thane Rehn and Louis Pellegrino are in charge of the prosecution.
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James D. Robnett, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations (“IRS-CI”), announced charges today against nine individuals for their participation in a long-running scheme to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns using the stolen identities of children, resulting in millions of dollars in estimated loss to the United States Treasury. Eight of the defendants were arrested this morning and will be presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses today. MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON remains at large.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, these defendants used their experience as tax preparers to skirt U.S. tax laws by using the stolen identities of children to help increase their clients’ tax returns. All told, the defendants’ years’ long scheme resulted in tens of millions of dollars in questionable credits. Now the defendants’ businesses are shut down – literally – and the defendants face significant time in prison for tax fraud.”
IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge James D. Robnett said: “Stealing the identities of children to file false tax returns is reprehensible. These individuals allegedly demonstrated a blatant disregard of the integrity of the United States tax system and caused immeasurable hardship to innocent victims. IRS-CI special agents are determined to investigate these crimes and protect the honest taxpayers.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint[1] unsealed this morning and information in the public record:
Under federal law, taxpayers may be entitled to claim certain tax credits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) available to qualifying low and moderate income working individuals and families. If the individual claims the EITC based on having a child, the individual must list the name and Social Security Number (“SSN”) of the child on his or her tax return, along with completing a separate schedule that contains the child’s name, SSN, year of birth, relationship to the taxpayer, and how many months the child lived with the taxpayer during the tax year.
Starting in 2009, and continuing for multiple years, ARIEL JIEMENEZ, a/k/a “Melo,” IRELINE NUNEZ, ANA YESSENIA JIMENEZ, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, CINTHIA FEDERO, GUILLERMO ARIAS MONCION, MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON, a/k/a “Junior,” and JOSE CASTILLO, a/k/a “Jairo,” abused the EITC program with their knowledge of the tax system by using the stolen identities of numerous children to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns for their clients. These clients were not supporting, residing with, or related to the children they claimed as a dependent. Rather, they paid the defendants between $1,000 and $1,500 for each child falsely added to their returns. The inclusion of these false dependents allowed clients to claim tax refunds they were not entitled to, chiefly the EITC.
All of the defendants initially worked together at the same tax-preparation business. In approximately 2013, MONCION, PANTALEON, and JOSE CASTILLO started their own tax-preparation business. In approximately 2014, JOSE CASTILLO left to start his own, third tax-preparation business. All three businesses engaged in the same conduct of possessing stolen identities of children and adding those identities to clients’ tax returns in exchange for a fee.
The tax returns filed by the defendants’ associated businesses indicate markedly high rates of returns seeking the EITC. For example, for returns filed from tax year 2010 through 2017, between 56 percent and 74 percent of all returns prepared by the defendants’ businesses claimed the EITC. In contrast, between 34 percent and 39 percent of all tax returns filed in the Bronx, New York, and between 18 percent and 21 percent of all tax returns filed nationwide for the same time period sought the EITC.
In total, between 2009 and the present, the returns filed by the defendants’ businesses claimed more than $44 million in the EITC.
In addition to the fraud described above, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, FEDERO, MONCION, and JOSE CASTILLO each fraudulently claimed dependents on their own personal tax returns.
* * *
A chart listing the defendants, and the charges and maximum penalties they face is attached. The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of IRS-CI. He also thanked the New York City Department of Investigation for its assistance.
This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Daniel G. Nessim, Ni Qian, and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Defendant
Charges
Maximum Penalties
Ariel Jimenez, a/k/a “Melo” (34, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
32 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Ireline Nunez (36, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
32 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Ana Yessenia Jimenez (36, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
32 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Evelin Jimenez (32, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return
35 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Leyvi Castillo (35, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return
35 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Cinthia Federo (31, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return (two counts)
38 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Guillermo Arias Moncion (32, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return (four counts)
74 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Marcos De Jesus Pantaleon, a/k/a “Junior” (28, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)
Aggravated Identity Theft
62 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Jose Castillo, a/k/a “Jairo” (42, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (three counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (three counts)
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return
95 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint, and the description of the Complaint set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and James D. Robnett, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations (“IRS-CI”), announced charges today against nine individuals for their participation in a long-running scheme to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns using the stolen identities of children, resulting in millions of dollars in estimated loss to the United States Treasury. Eight of the defendants were arrested this morning and will be presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses today. MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON remains at large.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, these defendants used their experience as tax preparers to skirt U.S. tax laws by using the stolen identities of children to help increase their clients’ tax returns. All told, the defendants’ years’ long scheme resulted in tens of millions of dollars in questionable credits. Now the defendants’ businesses are shut down – literally – and the defendants face significant time in prison for tax fraud.”
IRS-CI Special Agent in Charge James D. Robnett said: “Stealing the identities of children to file false tax returns is reprehensible. These individuals allegedly demonstrated a blatant disregard of the integrity of the United States tax system and caused immeasurable hardship to innocent victims. IRS-CI special agents are determined to investigate these crimes and protect the honest taxpayers.”
According to the allegations in the Complaint[1] unsealed this morning and information in the public record:
Under federal law, taxpayers may be entitled to claim certain tax credits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) available to qualifying low and moderate income working individuals and families. If the individual claims the EITC based on having a child, the individual must list the name and Social Security Number (“SSN”) of the child on his or her tax return, along with completing a separate schedule that contains the child’s name, SSN, year of birth, relationship to the taxpayer, and how many months the child lived with the taxpayer during the tax year.
Starting in 2009, and continuing for multiple years, ARIEL JIEMENEZ, a/k/a “Melo,” IRELINE NUNEZ, ANA YESSENIA JIMENEZ, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, CINTHIA FEDERO, GUILLERMO ARIAS MONCION, MARCOS DE JESUS PANTALEON, a/k/a “Junior,” and JOSE CASTILLO, a/k/a “Jairo,” abused the EITC program with their knowledge of the tax system by using the stolen identities of numerous children to file thousands of fraudulent tax returns for their clients. These clients were not supporting, residing with, or related to the children they claimed as a dependent. Rather, they paid the defendants between $1,000 and $1,500 for each child falsely added to their returns. The inclusion of these false dependents allowed clients to claim tax refunds they were not entitled to, chiefly the EITC.
All of the defendants initially worked together at the same tax-preparation business. In approximately 2013, MONCION, PANTALEON, and JOSE CASTILLO started their own tax-preparation business. In approximately 2014, JOSE CASTILLO left to start his own, third tax-preparation business. All three businesses engaged in the same conduct of possessing stolen identities of children and adding those identities to clients’ tax returns in exchange for a fee.
The tax returns filed by the defendants’ associated businesses indicate markedly high rates of returns seeking the EITC. For example, for returns filed from tax year 2010 through 2017, between 56 percent and 74 percent of all returns prepared by the defendants’ businesses claimed the EITC. In contrast, between 34 percent and 39 percent of all tax returns filed in the Bronx, New York, and between 18 percent and 21 percent of all tax returns filed nationwide for the same time period sought the EITC.
In total, between 2009 and the present, the returns filed by the defendants’ businesses claimed more than $44 million in the EITC.
In addition to the fraud described above, EVELIN JIMENEZ, LEYVI CASTILLO, FEDERO, MONCION, and JOSE CASTILLO each fraudulently claimed dependents on their own personal tax returns.
* * *
A chart listing the defendants, and the charges and maximum penalties they face is attached. The statutory maximum penalties are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the judge.
Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of IRS-CI. He also thanked the New York City Department of Investigation for its assistance.
This case is being handled by the Office’s General Crimes Unit. Assistant United States Attorneys Daniel G. Nessim, Ni Qian, and Daniel C. Richenthal are in charge of the prosecution.
The charges contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Defendant
Charges
Maximum Penalties
Ariel Jimenez, a/k/a “Melo” (34, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
32 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Ireline Nunez (36, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
32 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Ana Yessenia Jimenez (36, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
32 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Evelin Jimenez (32, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return
35 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Leyvi Castillo (35, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return
35 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Cinthia Federo (31, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return (two counts)
38 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Guillermo Arias Moncion (32, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return (four counts)
74 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Marcos De Jesus Pantaleon, a/k/a “Junior” (28, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (two counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (two counts)
Aggravated Identity Theft
62 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
Jose Castillo, a/k/a “Jairo” (42, of New York, New York)
Conspiracy to defraud the United States with respect to claims (three counts)
Conspiracy to commit wire fraud (three counts)
Aggravated Identity Theft
Subscribing to a false return
95 years in prison
Mandatory minimum of two years in prison to be imposed consecutively to any other sentence
[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Complaint, and the description of the Complaint set forth herein, constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The 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