Month: September 2022

Source: United States Department of Justice News

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – Four individuals were sentenced Monday and yesterday to multiple life terms and 26 years in prison for numerous charges relating to a murder, a violent gang enterprise, and a drug trafficking conspiracy operating in Virginia, California, and several other states.

According to court documents, Peter Le, 25, of Dunn Loring, Young Yoo, 26, of Centreville, Joseph Lamborn, 28, of California, and Tony Le, 28, also of California, were members of a violent Northern Virginia Street gang called the Reccless Tigers, which was affiliated with a California gang called the West Side Asian Boyz. The gang, which originated in Centreville in 2011, distributed thousands of pounds of marijuana as well as other THC products, cocaine, ecstasy, and prescription drugs. Many of the gang’s customers were middle and high school students in Northern Virginia and college students at a number of Virginia universities.

According to court records, gang members over a number of years engaged in a persistent pattern of intimidation and retaliation against individuals who did not pay their drug debts and anyone who were believed to have cooperated with law enforcement. Gang members attacked homes – with Molotov cocktails and even engaged in a drive-by shooting – in early morning hours when adults and children were sleeping in their homes in Fairfax, Stafford, and Prince William counties. Further, Peter Le and other gang members vandalized numerous homes and engaged in physical assaults against those who owed drug debts or were suspected of cooperating with law enforcement. 

Reccless Tigers members are also responsible for two homicides. The first homicide occurred at one of the gang’s house parties in April 2016. During the party, one of the guests (the “victim”) began arguing with a gang member. The argument turned into a brawl, during which numerous gang members attacked the victim. The victim was stabbed in the chest during the fight, and he then left the party with friends unaware that he had life-threatening injuries. He died later that night at his home. 

The second homicide occurred on Feb. 1, 2019. The victim, Brandon White, owed Yoo several thousand dollars for marijuana he had obtained when he was a juvenile in and around 2013-14. David Nguyen, a Reccless Tigers gang member, assaulted White over this drug debt on Aug. 8, 2018, which resulted in White sustaining serious injuries that required hospitalization. The Fairfax County Police Department subsequently arrested Nguyen and charged him with robbery and malicious wounding. As Nguyen’s criminal case progressed, gang members became aware that White had been subpoenaed to testify against Nguyen at a preliminary hearing. In response, gang members attempted to pay White in return for him refusing to cooperate in Nguyen’s prosecution. Gang members also threatened to kill White if he testified. White refused the gang’s offer, and he testified against Nguyen on Nov. 19, 2018. Less than two and a half months later, Peter Le, Yoo, and Lamborn carried out gang members’ threats by murdering White.

On Jan. 31, 2019, and continuing into the early morning hours of Feb. 1, 2019, Peter Le, Yoo, Lamborn, and others kidnapped White at a shopping mall in Fairfax County. The conspirators then held White against his will in a vehicle and drove him to a wooded area of Richmond, where Peter Le, Yoo, and Lamborn then repeatedly stabbed White in his face and other areas, and ultimately shot White three times in the back. White was left in the woods and died from his injuries.

Twenty-one defendants have pleaded guilty to federal charges and have been sentenced. Three defendants are fugitives. The table below shows the key sentences.

Name	Conviction(s)	Result
Peter Le*	Conspiracy to participate in the affairs of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; Violent crimes in aid of racketeering murder; Conspiracy to engage in kidnapping; Kidnapping resulting in death; Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; Killing while engaged in drug trafficking; Maintaining a drug-involved premises; Distribution of marijuana and cocaine; Use, carry, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime; and Money laundering.	Sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment; 30 years for conspiring to distribute controlled substances, six terms of 240 months; and 60 months to be served consecutive for using, carrying, and possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking crime
Young Yoo*	Conspiracy to participate in the affairs of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; Violent crimes in aid of racketeering murder; Conspiracy to engage in kidnapping; Kidnapping resulting in death; Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, Killing while engaged in drug trafficking.	Sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment and 20 years for conspiring to distribute controlled substances.
Joseph Duk-Hyun Lamborn*	Conspiracy to participate in the affairs of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; Violent crimes in aid of racketeering murder; Conspiracy to engage in kidnapping; Kidnapping resulting in death; Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; Killing while engaged in drug trafficking; Firearms murder.	Sentenced to six terms of life imprisonment, with one term to be served consecutive, and 15 years for conspiring to distribute controlled substances.
Tony Minh Le*	Conspiracy to participate in the affairs of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.	Sentenced to 312 months
Kevin Aagesen	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; Conspiracy to commit kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity.	Sentenced to 188 months
Sascha Amadeus Carlisle	Conspiracy to participate in the affairs of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; Conspiracy to engage in kidnapping; Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances.	Sentenced to 196 months
Abdullah Abdow Sayf	Conspiracy to commit kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity; Use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.	Sentenced to 180 months
Fahad Abdulkadir	Conspiracy to commit kidnapping in aid of racketeering activity; Possession with the intent to distribute 50 kilograms or less of marijuana; Use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.	Sentenced to 192 months
David Thai Hoang Nguyen	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 171 months
Kyu Wa Hong	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 216 months
Sang Thanh Huynh	Conspiracy to participate in the affairs of an enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; Money laundering; Felon in possession of a firearm.	Scheduled to 192 months
Soung Park	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 132 months
Tasneef Amhed Chowdhury	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 121 months
Joshua Andrew Miliaresis	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 18 months
Tyler Thang Le	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 135 months
Dane Nicholas Hughes	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 12 months and one day
Richard Pak	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; Distribution of cocaine; Use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.	Sentenced to 178 months
Spencer Pak	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances; Distribution of cocaine; Use and carry of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.	Sentenced to 120 months
Tyler Pranompi Sonesamay	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 120 months
Khalil Yasin	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances	Sentenced to 97 months
Anthony Nguyen Thanh Le	Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of cocaine	Sentenced to 92 months
Angel Hoang Le	Maintaining a drug-involved premises	Sentenced to 42 months
Zu Hun Chang	Possession with the intent to distribute cocaine	Sentenced to 42 months
Brandon Sobotta	Distribution of cocaine	Sentenced to time served (about 7 months)

This was a multi-jurisdictional OCDETF case involving the FBI Washington Field Office, ATF, HSI, IRS, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Fairfax County Police Department, Prince William County Police Department, City of Richmond Police, Montgomery County (MD) Police, Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, Falls Church Police, City of Alexandria Sheriff’s Office, Richmond County Sheriff’s Office, Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office, Fairfax County Fire Marshal, Prince William County Fire Marshal, Stafford County Fire Marshal, City of Monterey Park (CA) Police, Garden Grove (CA) Police, Anaheim (CA) Police; Trinity County (CA) Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, DEA San Francisco Division – Reading Office, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Department of Food & Agriculture, California Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Cannabis Control, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of California – Sacramento Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office Central District of California – Santa Ana and Riverside Offices, and the FBI’s Field Offices in Richmond, Los Angeles, and Sacramento.

Jessica D. Aber, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Charlie J. Patterson, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Washington Field Office; and Wayne A. Jacobs, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office Criminal Division, made the announcement after sentencing by Senior U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jim Trump, Carina A. Cuellar, 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. 1:19-cr-57.

Source: United States Department of Justice News

PITTSBURGH- A former resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, initially charged in federal court by criminal complaint for possession of material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh on charges of sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud and coercion, as well as production and possession of material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor, United States Attorney Cindy K. Chung announced today.

The seven-count Indictment, returned yesterday, names Eric Jefferson, 39, formerly of the Polish Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh and currently incarcerated at Allegheny County Jail, as the sole defendant.

According to the seven-count Indictment, from in and around June 2019 to in and around April 2022, Jefferson attempted to and did by force, threats of force, fraud or coercion, cause four different adult females, who are known to the grand jury, to engage in commercial sex acts. Additionally, the Indictment alleges that from in and around February 2021 to in and around May 2022, Jefferson used the internet and cell phone to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of a business involving prostitution, in violation of state and federal law. The Indictment also alleges that on or about May 29, 2017, Jefferson produced a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Lastly, the Indictment alleges that, on or about May 18, 2022, Jefferson possessed material depicting the sexual exploitation of minors who were under the age of 12.

The law provides for a maximum total sentence of not less than 15 years to life in prison, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00 or both. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed would be based upon the seriousness of the offense and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.

Assistant United States Attorney Rebecca L. Silinski is prosecuting this case on behalf of the United States.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, with the assistance of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Narcotics Division, conducted the investigation leading to the Indictment in this case.
The charges in the Indictment concern specific victims. Additional members of the public who may have information about Jefferson’s involvement in sex trafficking are encouraged to call the FBI’s Pittsburgh Field Office at (412) 432-4000.

This prosecution is part of Operation T.E.N. (Trafficking Ends Now). Operation T.E.N. serves as an umbrella coalition for law enforcement, community, and non-profit partners in the 25
counties in the Western District of Pennsylvania. This coordinated effort aims to end human trafficking through education and improved cooperation across agencies and service providers, thereby enhancing the office’s ability to empower victims of human trafficking to become thriving survivors.

An indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Source: United States Department of Justice

Solving the Gobal Problem of Platform Monopolization

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery 

Thank you so much for that introduction. And thank you to the conference organizers for continuing this wonderful tradition of gathering antitrust enforcers from around the world for a discussion about the enforcement and policy issues we face together.

Every era of competition law is different. Each has its own unique set of challenges. Historically, in the 1990s and early 2000s the greatest challenge for the antitrust community was to establish competition law as a global enforcement norm.[1]  Today we have largely been successful in meeting that challenge. Most of the global economy is subject to competition laws and the jurisdiction of at least one enforcement agency.[2]

We now face a pressing challenge that demands an aggressive coordinated response from the competition law enforcement community. Unilateral exclusionary conduct—what we in the United States call monopolization—is ascendant.[3] 

The digital economy has captivated the world’s attention for two related reasons. First, we have watched how it can serve as a driver of growth and innovation. The power of instantaneous connection to worldwide networks of people, companies, and infrastructure changes what is possible in profound ways. Our lives have been transformed in so many respects. 

Second, we have watched these changes lead to the collection of corporate power that threatens our liberty. The digital economy has enabled monopoly power of a nature and degree not seen in a century. Without competition to deliver ready access to the connections we seek, we are forced to pay with our time in endless ad-filled scrolls. Algorithms manipulate our psychology to shape our minds and our behavior, without competition for them to do so responsibly. With too little competition over privacy, we find our most intimate data mined and sold with abandon. The digital age is not only characterized by the presence of monopoly power, but by new means of its exploitation more threatening to individual freedom than ever before.

The promises and perils of the digital economy are fundamentally related. At the same time that platforms connect us to one another, they control how we connect. The power to interconnect millions carries the power to influence the lives of millions and to shape the development of adjacent industries. Today’s monopolists can influence the interactions and behavior of customers and would-be competitors alike. They can pick winners and losers in adjacent markets, discourage switching to rival services, and punish entrepreneurs that stray too closely into competition. We have seen how exclusionary tactics exploiting this power can strengthen already-dominant positions and deepen the moat around a digital castle.

This is a global challenge because monopolization often involves more than just one bad act. The exclusionary power of digital platforms arises from their massive connectivity, and plays out in parts large and small across a wide range of interdependent and reinforcing relationships. The constant threat of its abuse threatens the competitive process and would-be rivals. If we answer one practice, another arises. If we address one behavior in one adjacent market, monopoly power may be used to extend the moat further around it.[4]  If we isolate individual practices without considering the flywheel of anticompetitive effects then we overlook the dimension of meaningful competition.

This can look like the old arcade game Whac-a-Mole. One mole’s head pops up, we focus on batting it back down, and by the time we look again two more have jumped out at us. No one ever really wins that game. The moles just keep coming. To stop them from popping up, you really need to unplug the machine.

In the same way, enforcers need to unplug the monopolization machine in digital platform industries. I would like to use my time today to talk about four ways we can do that together.   

First, we need to examine a monopolist’s course of conduct. To understand exclusionary behavior by a monopolist, we have to understand their monopoly, what it is, and what protects it. All of the mutually-reinforcing strategies that protect the monopoly are relevant to understanding any one. If we spend a year examining a single tree, no matter how effectively, we will never have a sense of the forest.

Dating back to at least Standard Oil in 1911, the Supreme Court has seen fit to review monopolization claims in the light of the combined effects of the full range of a monopolist’s exclusionary tactics.[5]  As the Third Circuit explained in LePage’s, we should examine practices “taken as a whole rather than consider each aspect in isolation” because “the relevant inquiry is the anticompetitive effect of [the] exclusionary practices taken together.”[6]  These concerns are most profound in markets that exhibit network or feedback effects.

The realities of digital markets have amplified the need to understand how exclusionary acts work together. The network effects that characterize digital markets create a flywheel effect through which anticompetitive conduct can be self-reinforcing. Enforcers must examine all of the conduct that keeps the wheel spinning, not just individual flicks of the wrist.   

My sense is that antitrust agencies, at least in the United States, have avoided this approach as one of the consequences of what I call the error cost error. Forty years ago, lawyers opposed to antitrust enforcement advocated that enforcers should get it wrong on purpose, and intentionally underenforce the law. In their view, monopolies inherently self-correct, but judicial errors do not, so we should avoid enforcement mistakes at all costs.[7]  From this perspective, we cannot risk enforcement against even a single bad act, much less a strategy of monopolization.

This was wrong on both fronts. Monopolies do not self-correct. We have all seen that in digital markets, monopolies self-sustain. Platforms that are fundamentally collaborative become critical trading partners for entire industries, and without competition have greater power to discourage rivalry. Network effects exacerbate this problem.  

Moreover, judicial errors need not be set in stone. As Justice Gorsuch explained in the Alston case last year, “whether an antitrust violation exists necessarily depends on a careful analysis of market realities…. If those market realities change, so may the legal analysis.”[8] 

Take Trinko for example.[9]  That was a case about expensive infrastructure like telephone poles and wires, and the Supreme Court was hesitant to impose unprecedented access because it did not want to discourage infrastructure investment.[10]  Digital platforms are profoundly different—they are built with 1s and 0s, not poles and wires, and they are collaborative by nature.[11]  In fact, most digital platforms draw their value from interconnection. So the underlying economic logic of Trinko will not apply in the same way to collaborative digital platforms that are built on interconnection.

Indeed, Trinko explained, like Alston, that “[A]ntitrust analysis must always be attuned to the particular structure and circumstances of the industry at issue.”[12]  The law’s ability to adapt means that we need not have so much fear of judicial error that we insist on inaction.

I therefore believe we can no longer be so cautious to avoid overenforcement that we intentionally underenforce the law. At the Antitrust Division, we have moved past the error cost error. We have been too limited by a self-imposed requirement that we use our most powerful microscopes to examine an exclusionary act before intervening to stop it. We need a wider lens, and a greater willingness to pursue and remedy all of the harmful behaviors that make up an exclusionary course of conduct.

That brings me to my second strategy to address the Whac-a-Mole monopolization machine. We need to expand our focus from the bad acts of years past to those happening now. Some people call this “horizon scanning” because they recognize the need to see the threats that are coming. I would take that a step further—not only should we look for the threats that are coming, we should go deal with them. We need to skate to where the puck is going.[13] 

Skating to the puck means that when we see a problem, we move to the problem in a forward-looking manner. This requires us to be more nimble and act quickly and decisively as the facts present themselves when justice demands. I also believe it requires us to seek preliminary injunctive relief before practices or policies with exclusionary impact are able to irreparably harm the markets. Even just a few months of discouraged innovation or entry in a multi-billion-dollar industry that exhibits powerful network and feedback effects can create irreparable competitive harm that demands preventive action.

Of course, I agree that in order to skate to the puck, we have to see it as well. I have been incredibly impressed with the leadership of the UK CMA in building out its data unit and in sharing its learning with partner agencies.[14]  And I have seen other agencies taking similar approaches. Just two days ago I had the opportunity to sit down with our colleagues in Canada and hear about their impressive work in this regard. At the Antitrust Division, we recognize that we need technological expertise and data-handling knowledge in-house in order to understand where markets are going and where the next threats may arise.

We are working to develop those capabilities and I am delighted that the Division has hired PHD data scientist Laura Edelson as its Chief Technologist to serve in our Expert Analysis Group, which is lead by our Chief Economist, Susan Athey. We are working to build a diverse community of experts with a wide range of complementary skills alongside our world-class economists, including our Principal Economist, Ioana Marinescu.

Our capabilities to do this are always, of course, limited by our resources. That is why the Department of Justice strongly supports passage of the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021.

I should mention that Susan has also been a great asset to our merger guidelines project. Together with the Division’s Policy Director David Lawrence, she is leading a dream team of talented attorneys and economists at the DOJ, who are working closely with colleagues at the FTC. I have asked them to revise the merger guidelines to be more accessible, more comprehensive, and most importantly to better reflect the law.

That brings me to my third suggestion for dealing with the monopolization machine. We need to stop mergers that “tend to create a monopoly.”[15]  The text of the Clayton Act has used these precise words for more than a century, but we have not always paid them due attention. Ignoring this language has led to underenforcement against mergers that, in the words of the 2010 Merger Guidelines “enhance or entrench market power.”[16] 

I believe our horizontal and vertical framework has been limiting in this respect. Focusing on that distinction has sometimes screened out important information about mergers that entrench market power or tend to create a monopoly. Mergers that relate to adjacent markets can have those effects, without being strictly horizontal or vertical. Our tools, however, have not equipped us to analyze them flexibly and comprehensively.

A recent paper Susan wrote with co-author Fiona Scott Morton provides a good example.[17]  They explain how important multi-homing services are to platform competition. Anything that makes it easy to switch back and forth, or to use multiple platforms simultaneously, is a multi-homing service. If a powerful platform acquires such a service, it can limit the multi-homing functionality to tip the market toward monopoly. Those types of mergers are not strictly horizontal or vertical, but they are important because they entrench market power and tend to create a monopoly.

When we analyze mergers that entrench market power, we also need to recognize that they may just be one more mole popping up its head as part of an exclusionary strategy. Effective merger review will therefore often demand assessing not only the direct competition between the merging companies, but the core monopoly of the acquirer and how the merger fits into an exclusionary course of conduct.

My final strategy for unplugging the Whac-a-Mole monopolization machine might be the most important. We need effective remedies that actually breach the moats and allow competitors to reach the castle. We need to obtain comprehensive relief that not only prevents the recurrence of a particular anticompetitive tactic, but that stops an exclusionary strategy altogether.

In some cases this will take the form of legislation. I believe that non-discrimination legislation will be a critical tool to discourage a wide range of exclusionary practices and give would-be competitors confidence that they are protected from retaliation. The Department of Justice has strongly encouraged Congress to pass the American Innovation and Choice Online Act.

This also means carefully designing remedies in cases under our existing laws. As we address platforms that thrive on interconnection, global remedies regimes will intersect more than ever. I am committed to deepening our international partnerships and to the hard work of case cooperation to ensure those overlaps are complementary. For the same reason, we look forward to working closely with EVP Vestager and our friends in the European Commission as they implement the Digital Markets Act.

Let me conclude on a hopeful note. I realize that we have tremendous challenges ahead, and that the path to meeting them will not be easy. This will not be as simple as reaching back and unplugging an arcade machine. It will be the work of many years. It will take energy and commitment and dedication.

The good news is that I see those things every day at the Antitrust Division. I am absolutely inspired by the work of the staff there. The attorneys, economists, and support staff come in every day driven by this mission we share. They are tireless. It has been overwhelming to experience their energy, and as I look back on my first year, it has been the highlight.

In addition, I would like to call attention to the unsung heroes, which are our paralegals and professional staff. The Antitrust Division has an incredible program that is buzzing with both new and seasoned paralegals and professional staff. They generate infectious enthusiasm for competition. And they offer fresh thinking about the challenges we face and creative solutions for the future. They are lifeblood of the Antitrust Division.

I hear that same enthusiasm here, among the global law enforcement community. There are new leaders emerging, and experienced leaders helping drive us forward together. As a community, we will address these shared challenges and, as before, emerge stronger for it.

Thank you.

Source: United States Department of Justice News

BILLINGS — Two men admitted to charges this week for their roles in an assault on a Bureau of Indian Affairs officer, who was pursuing one of the men for operating a stolen vehicle in Lodge Grass, on the Crow Indian Reservation, U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich said today.

Earl Landon Old Chief, Jr., 36, pleaded guilty on Thursday, Sept. 15, to assault on a federal officer. Old Chief faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release. U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan presided. A sentencing date will be set before U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters.

Co-defendant Darnell Lee Not Afraid, 38, of Pryor, pleaded guilty on Wednesday, Sept. 14, to possession of a firearm in furtherance of assault on a federal officer, a crime of violence. Not Afraid faces a mandatory minimum of five years to life in prison, a $250,000 fine and five years of supervised release. U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters presided and set sentencing for Jan. 26, 2023.

The court will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other sentencing factors. Old Chief and Not Afraid were detained pending further proceedings.

The government alleged in court documents that on March 14, 2021, BIA officers, while in the course of their official duties, were pursuing Not Afraid, who was driving a stolen truck at high speeds through residential neighborhoods in Lodge Grass. Not Afraid eventually stopped, got out of the truck and ran away. The officer pursued on foot into a residential yard and drew his Taser. As the officer neared Not Afraid, Not Afraid turned toward the officer, pulled up his shirt and grabbed a silver revolver from his waistband. The officer dropped his Taser, drew his service pistol and fired multiple times at Not Afraid, striking him at least once in the arm. An angry crowd of people, who had been watching the chase, accosted the officer, yelling and cursing at him. The crowd was angry at the officer for shooting Not Afraid and prevented the officer from attending to him.  Old Chief became agitated at the scene and threw a bottle at the officer, nearly striking him in the shoulder and head. Old Chief pointed the officer’s Taser at the officer’s face and then threw the Taser at him. Officers recovered the revolver and determined that it was loaded.

A third co-defendant, Darwyna Caylynn Catherine Bullshows, pleaded guilty to charges and is pending sentencing.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Lori Harper Suek is prosecuting the case, which was investigated by the FBI.

XXX

Source: United States Department of Justice News

CLEVELAND – Vincent Richardson Jr., 30, of Warren, Ohio, was sentenced on Wednesday, September 14, 2022, to more than 24 years in prison and ordered to pay a $4,000 special assessment by U.S. District Judge Christopher A. Boyko after he pleaded guilty in May 2022 to 40 counts of charges related to his role in leading a drug trafficking conspiracy.

According to court documents, from March 2019 to February 2020, Richardson operated a drug trafficking organization in the Youngstown-Warren areas and supplied drugs, including cocaine, cocaine base (crack), heroin, fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, to other members of the organization to be further distributed throughout the region.

As part of an investigation into Richardson and the drug trafficking organization, authorities conducted multiple controlled purchases of narcotics from members of the organization, including Richardson.  In some instances, Richardson would direct another individual to deliver drugs to the buyer.   

Investigators later executed multiple search warrants related to the investigation, including three that focused on Richardson’s residence.  During the execution of these warrants, investigators obtained drug trafficking paraphernalia, a firearm, over $4,000 cash, a drug press and multiple quantities of drugs, including heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, cocaine base (crack) and fentanyl analogues.

The investigation preceding the indictments was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), FBI, Mahoning Valley Violent Crimes Task Force, Trumbull Action Group, Trumbull County Sheriff’s Office and the Warren Police Department.

This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys David Toepfer and Damoun Delaviz.