PENSACOLA, FLORIDA – Darrion K. Finley, 21, of Pensacola, Florida, has been indicted in federal court on charges related to a shooting incident in late-2024 during an attempted traffic stop of a reported stolen vehicle. John P. Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida announced the charges.
Finley is scheduled for arraignment before United States Magistrate Judge Zachary C. Bolitho at the United States Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, on July 22, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
The Indictment charges Finley with Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, Attempting to Kill an Escambia County Sheriff’s Deputy to Prevent Certain Communications, and Discharging a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence.
If convicted, Finley faces up to life imprisonment.
The case is being jointly investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office; and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys David L. Goldberg and Jessica S. Etherton.
An indictment is merely an allegation by a grand jury that a defendant has committed a violation of federal criminal law and is not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial, during which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
This case is part of Operation Take Back America (https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1393746/dl?inline ) a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html.
RALEIGH, N.C. – A Raleigh man has been sentenced to more than eight years in federal prison for trafficking large quantities of fentanyl throughout Eastern North Carolina. Joshua Vines, 40, admitted to conspiring to distribute over 400 grams of fentanyl and pleaded guilty earlier this year.
According to court records and evidence presented at sentencing, on October 25, 2023, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents were conducting surveillance on a vehicle registered to co-defendant Nigel Gray. They observed the car parked outside a Dollar General in Elizabeth City, where a passenger and co-defendant, Omar Cardenas, exited and got into another vehicle. Both cars then left the area.
Law enforcement later stopped the vehicle, driven by Vines, in Nashville, NC. During the stop, Vines contacted Gray by phone to ask for the car’s registration information. A trained K-9 alerted to the vehicle, prompting a search. Inside, officers found approximately 30,000 pills containing fentanyl or para-fluorofentanyl, with a combined weight of 1.5 kilograms, along with an additional kilogram of fentanyl powder. Vines had texted Gray that they were being detained and requested consent to search the vehicle. The group had planned to distribute the drugs in the Raleigh area.
Gray and Cardenas have already been sentenced in federal court for their roles in the conspiracy.
Vines has prior felony convictions for discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle, trafficking heroin, and trafficking cocaine by transportation.
Daniel P. Bubar, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III. HSI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigations, the Raleigh Police Department, the Nashville Police Department, the Pitt County Sheriff’s Office, the Greenville Regional Drug Task Force investigated the case and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Timothy Severo and Katherine Englander prosecuted the case.
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA – Garey A. Buscaino, 48, of Pensacola, Florida, has been indicted in federal court on charges related to a decade-long pattern of producing and possessing child pornography. John P. Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida announced the charges.
Buscaino is scheduled for arraignment before United States Magistrate Judge Zachary C. Bolitho at the United States Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, on July 22, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
The Indictment charges Buscaino with the Production of Child Pornography of four different minor females between 2015 – 2025. He is also charged with the Possession of Child Pornography Involving Minors Under the Age of 12 Years Old.
If convicted, Buscaino faces up to 30 years’ imprisonment as to each minor victim for the Production of Child Pornography and up to 20 years’ imprisonment as to the Possession of Child Pornography Involving Minors Under the Age of 12 Years Old.
The case is being jointly investigated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney David L. Goldberg.
An indictment is merely an allegation by a grand jury that a defendant has committed a violation of federal criminal law and is not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial, during which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice and led by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Criminal Divisions Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), it marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – A Wentzville, Missouri, man, Mark Randle, 44, was sentenced on July 15, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Colleen R. Lawless to 210 months in prison for distributing methamphetamine.
Randle was indicted in October 2020 and pleaded guilty in March 2025.
The statutory penalties for distributing methamphetamine in this case were no less than 15 years and up to life imprisonment, up to a $20,000,000 fine, and up to a life term of supervised release.
This case was investigated by the Illinois State Police; the Quincy Police Department; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Springfield Field Office; and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Z. Weir represented the government in the prosecution.
The case against Randle is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.
In 2022, somebody in the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) mistakenly shared a spreadsheet containing the personal information associated with 18,714 Afghans and their family members. This data breach, and the efforts to cover it up, raises serious questions about state secrecy, blame-shifting and accountability.
After discovering the mistake in August 2023, the government covered up their spectacular error with an unprecedented injunction “contra mundum” (against the world). This “superinjunction” prohibited journalists and others in the know – like one author of this article (Professor Sara de Jong) – from reporting the breach and even the very existence of the injunction.
When the superinjunction was finally lifted on July 15, John Healey, the defence secretary, revealed that the MoD had operated a secret resettlement scheme for Afghans whose data had been leaked at risk from the Taliban. To date, 900 Afghans and 3,600 family members have been flown to Britain or are currently in transit via this scheme. A further 600 people and their immediate family members are still in Afghanistan, being promised evacuation. Many thousands of others on the list were already resettled in the UK via two other official routes.
The spectacular nature and impact of this data leak should not distract from the fact that it is not entirely unique. The personal data of Afghan applicants had already been exposed by the MoD in an earlier series of data breaches in September 2021.
The superinjunction is only the latest in a string of silences that have prevented accountability on Afghanistan and other issues to do with national security.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
In the wake of the dramatic Nato withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the foreign affairs select committee was dependent on whistleblowers to get to the truth about then prime minister Boris Johnson’s prioritisation of an animal charity for evacuation, over others at acute risk. Political accountability over the chaos of the evacuation was compromised by the foreign office who, according to then committee chair Tom Tugendhat, “repeatedly has given us answers that, in our judgement, are at best intentionally evasive, and often deliberately misleading”.
The Ministry of Defence – including Healey in his statement on the data breach – routinely cites the deaths of 457 British soldiers as the “costs of war” in Afghanistan. But the department only released the data on how many Afghan interpreters died alongside them after a freedom of information request by Sara de Jong. The MoD, even after several freedom of information Requests and appeals, refuses to provide further details about the circumstances of their deaths.
Even the latest shocking revelations didn’t end with the lifting of the superinjunction. A secondary injunction was lifted on July 17, revealing that the leaked list also contained the identities of dozens of British officials, including spies and special forces.
Selective secrecy
In the wider context of government leaks and secrecy, critical questions need to be asked about which secrets are kept, by whom and why.
In his judgement lifting the superinjunction, Mr Justice Chamberlain credited media organisations and individual journalists involved with the fact that they had kept the leak confidential. Like Sara, some had become aware of the breach several months before Healey (the then-shadow defence secretary was informed in December 2023). But all kept quiet to keep Afghans at risk safe, not to cover up their own errors.
The government invests in secrecy when it also has its own embarrassment to hide, whether it is an extraordinary superinjunction or secrecy about the prioritisation of a pet charity during the Afghanistan evacuation.
Appeals to national security routinely obstruct media, legal and public access to information to hold the government to account. Meanwhile, many Afghans are left wondering why their and their loved ones’ data was on a spreadsheet that could be emailed around with a click of the wrong button.
Effects on Afghans
The consequences of the cover-up will be felt most acutely by Afghans – those on the leaked list still waiting for evacuation, including family members of Afghans already in the UK, whose own presence may be complicated further by anti-immigration sentiment.
Following the revelations, Healey announced that the secret relocation scheme was now closed, following the sudden decision to close the two official Afghan resettlement schemes.
The decision to shut down the two publicly known resettlement schemes, he claimed, was based on “policy concerns about proportionality, public accountability, cost and fairness”, as well as a commissioned report on the impact of the leak.
He defended his decisions saying that “the taxpayer should be paying £1.2 billion less over the next few years, and that around 9,500 fewer Afghans will come to this country”. In the context of ongoing anti-immigration rhetoric, the mention of costs combined with refugees is as unsurprising as it is inflammatory.
On the day of announcement, affected Afghans were sent a notice by the MoD and a link where they could find out if their data had been compromised. The email said very little about what the MoD could offer, and said a lot about what measures Afghans were now supposed to take: use a virtual private network, limit who can see your social media profiles.
Afghans unlucky enough to be Afghanistan were simply advised that, “If you are outside the UK, please do not try to travel to a third country without a valid passport and visa. If you do so, you will be putting yourself at risk on the journey, and you may face the risk of being deported back to Afghanistan”.
It is almost impossible for Afghans to travel legally without international assistance. And, since the Taliban are not recognised as a legitimate government, embassies are closed for citizens to even obtain legal travel documentation.
Given that the British government recognises the real risk of rights violations in Afghanistan, as well as the ongoing assault on women’s rights by the Taliban, it seems contradictory – and a remarkable abdication of responsibility – to close routes to safety.
Victoria Canning has received funding from UKRI and British Academy.
Sara de Jong has received funding from the British Academy (Mid-Career Fellowship 2022) for research on Afghan interpreters and their claims to protection and rights. She is the chair of the board of trustees of the Sulha Alliance CIO, which advocates for and supports Afghan interpreters employed by the British Army.
Source: United States Senator for Nebraska Deb Fischer
Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced that she advanced more than $9 million for critical Nebraska safety priorities through the Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding was included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) Appropriations Act, which now awaits consideration on the Senate Floor.
“Nebraska’s police officers and first responders work around the clock to keep our communities safe, which is why it’s important they have the tools at their disposal to carry out their duties effectively. I’m proud to champion efforts through the Appropriations Committee to bring federal dollars back to Nebraska to support our law enforcement, upgrade our emergency communication systems, and support child trafficking prevention efforts. I will always support our men and women in blue, and I look forward to seeing these important provisions advance through the legislative process,”Fischer said.
Funding projects advanced by Fischer for Nebraska are listed below:
Child Trafficking Prevention Project Project Description: Implementing and assessing the Missing and Anti-Trafficking Youth Services Program to protect children from exploitation. Project Location: University of Nebraska—Omaha Amount: $2,000,000
Communications Modernization Project Project Description: System-wide upgrades for emergency communications. Project Location: Otoe County Amount: $2,700,000
Emergency Radio System Improvements Project Description: Equipment upgrades for emergency radio communications interoperability. Project Location: Thayer County Amount: $327,000
Nebraska Online Child Exploitation Prevention Technology Project Project Description: Nebraska State Patrol task force technology upgrades to support investigations for the arrest of child predators. Amount: $176,000
Police Public Safety Equipment Project Description: Public safety equipment upgrades for the Omaha Police Department. Project Location: City of Omaha Amount: $1,000,000
Sheriff’s Office Equipment & Body-Worn Cameras Project Description: Acquisition of equipment, including body-worn cameras, for the Lancaster County Sheriff’s Office. Project Location: Lancaster County Amount: $1,200,000
Sheriff’s Office Technology Systems Upgrades Project Description: Equipment and technology upgrades for law enforcement information systems. Project Location: Douglas County Amount: $639,000
Southeast Communications 911 Center Equipment Upgrades Project Description: Emergency communications equipment upgrades at the Southeast Communications 911 Center. Project Location: City of Beatrice Amount: $782,000
Region 26 Communications Center Radio Update Project Description: Equipment upgrades to support fire, rescue, and law enforcement emergency communications. Project Location: Region 26 Council: Thomas, Blaine, Loup, Garfield, Wheeler, Greeley, Valley, and Sherman Counties Amount: $415,000
A man has been convicted of travelling to Syria with the intention of committing acts of terrorism, following an investigation by the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command.
Isa Giga, 32 (11.02.1993), previously of Hounslow, west London, was arrested at Heathrow Airport on 23 May 2024 after he caught a flight back from Turkey.
Met counter terrorism police had been notified in 2018 that Giga had travelled to Syria, via Turkey, to fight for the Jaysh Al Fath group, which was part of an alliance of Islamist armed factions fighting in the Syrian civil war, including an Al-Qaeda affiliated group.
Commander Dominic Murphy, head of the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command said: “We have been clear for some time now that anyone returning to the UK suspected of being involved in any terrorist-related activity overseas will be thoroughly investigated.
We work very closely with other partners and agencies here in the UK and overseas in order to do this and help keep the public safe.
“As this case shows, we will always arrest those who return to the UK after fighting for a terrorist group, no matter how long it has been since they left the country. “
Giga was convicted on 18 July of an offence contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act, 2006 after a two-week trial at the Old Bailey.
The jury heard Giga flew from Heathrow to Istanbul on 7 September 2015 and then took a connecting flight to Adana in the south of Turkey. From there he crossed the border into Syria.
Evidence gathered by Met counter terrorism officers included emails and social media messages from Giga’s family, which proved he had travelled to Syria to ‘fight for Jihad’.
This was also matched with flight passenger records and transactions from his bank account.
Further evidence was gathered from messages Giga sent on a social media messaging platform to an undercover officer in June 2016. Giga explains how he “never knew about jihad until 2015” when ISIS took control of parts of Syria.
Giga said he supported ‘Nusra’, part of the Jaysh Al Fath group, and ‘wanted martyrdom very soon in the first row’ (the battlefield in Syria).
He will be sentenced at the Old Bailey on 17 October.
A man has been jailed for life for murdering 55-year-old Derek Thomas, who was stabbed outside his home in Hackney last year.
On Monday, 7 July, Kamar Williams, 34 (21.01.91) of West Ferry Road, E14 was found guilty of murder and possession of an offensive weapon following a trial at the Old Bailey.
On Friday, 18 July a judge at the same court sentenced Williams to life in prison, with a minimum term of 29 years.
The court heard how, in the early evening of Tuesday, 30 July 2024 Williams sent threatening text messages to Derek’s daughter, warning her to “watch this space.”
Hours later, CCTV captured Williams driving a grey van along Benthal Road, N16. He stopped directly outside Derek’s home. Williams was wearing a pair of reflective trainers, which made him easily identifiable throughout the CCTV footage.
Williams was seen pacing along Benthal Road, loitering near Derek’s home, before disappearing out of shot. Moments later, he returned to his van and drove away at 23:03hrs.
At 23:04hrs, police received a 999 call from a member of the public reporting that a man had been stabbed with a ‘very big knife.’ Officers and the London Ambulance Service attended, but despite their best efforts, Derek died at the scene.
Detective Inspector John Marriott, who led the investigation, said: “This was a brutal and premeditated attack on a much-loved father. Kamar Williams showed clear intent that night, driving to Derek’s home, waiting for the right moment, and carrying out this senseless act of violence.
“The swift response from our officers, combined with extensive CCTV, forensic work, and determination from our investigation team, led to his arrest and conviction.
“Our thoughts remain with Derek’s family, who have shown immense strength throughout this ordeal.”
Following the conviction, Derek’s family said:
“Derek will be greatly missed by his family and friends, he was a dedicated family man and worked hard to provide for them. He was the life and soul of the family. Derek was always on hand to provide support, knowledge, advice and was a calming influence when it was required. His passing has left a massive hole in the lives of his wife, children, grandchildren, family and all that knew him. He was greatly loved by all and will never be forgotten.”
The investigation progressed rapidly. On Thursday, 1 August 2024 police were contacted about an abandoned grey van on Langford Close, E8. Inside, officers recovered a bank card belonging to Williams from the driver’s seat, directly linking him to the vehicle.
Analysis of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system showed that the van had travelled multiple times between the crime scene and Williams’ home address.
Enquiries at a local hospital also revealed that Williams had sought treatment for a 5cm cut to his left knee on 31 July, the day after the murder — further evidence tying him to the violent incident.
Williams repeatedly attempted to evade police. On Saturday, 3 August traffic officers tried to stop a silver BMW on Burnt Ash Hill, SE9 but the driver made off. It was later established that Williams was behind the wheel.
In a further effort to avoid arrest, Williams left London temporarily. However, following a manhunt, officers identified and arrested him within the footprint of Notting Hill Carnival on 26 August 2024. He was charged with murder the following day.
WASHINGTON – Damon Middleton, 32, and Michael Alston, 27, both of the District of Columbia, were ordered to be held without bond today following their arrests for armed kidnapping and carjacking, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
According to court documents, on May 9, 2025, a male victim was parking his Dodge Caravan at his home in the District when he was approached by two men who hit him on the head and demanded money. One of the subjects allegedly took the victim’s keys, entered his apartment, and ransacked it.
The two men then drove the victim in the victim’s Dodge Caravan to various Maryland ATMs to withdraw funds from the victim’s CashApp and bank accounts. The men eventually left the victim zip-tied in Hyattsville, Maryland, and drove off in his vehicle. Law enforcement later located the torched remains of the victim’s Dodge Caravan within the District.
Middleton and Alston were charged in an indictment, which was unsealed on July 11, 2025, on charges of federal kidnapping and transportation of a stolen vehicle, as well as District of Columbia charges of armed carjacking and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.
This case is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department and the FBI Washington Field Office’s Violent Crimes Task Force. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Sabena Auyeung and Mark Levy.
WASHINGTON – Philip Dupree, 40, a former police officer with the Fairmount Heights, Maryland Police Department, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 74 months in prison following his conviction at trial on June 17, 2024, in connection with violating a man’s civil rights by using unreasonable force, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
A federal jury found Dupree guilty on June 17, 2024, of one count of deprivation of rights under color of law. In addition to the 74-month prison term, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered Dupree to serve threeyears of supervised release.
“When the defendant used unnecessary and excessive force on a man in handcuffs, he violated his duty and betrayed his oath to serve and protect,” said U.S. Attorney Pirro. “The Court’s sentence serves as a stark reminder that members of law enforcement must not break the faith with the communities we all serve.”
According to court documents, Dupree was on duty as a Fairmont Heights Police officer during the early morning hours of Aug. 4, 2019, when he conducted a traffic stop on Eastern Avenue NE, in the District of Columbia. After detaining the driver and the driver’s sister, Officer Dupree pepper-sprayed the driver in the face while the driver was handcuffed and seated in Dupree’s police car. The jury found that Dupree’s use of force constituted excessive force by a law enforcement officer.
“Our government requires police officers to abide by the laws they enforce and to protect the constitutional rights of all persons in their custody,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division. “Dupree abused his authority as a police officer, and today Dupree was held accountable for his actions.”
“Law enforcement officers have a duty to enforce the laws while protecting the rights of those they serve,” said Steven J. Jensen, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office. “Today’s sentence underscores this responsibility and demonstrates the FBI’s resolve to pursue public servants who abuse their positions of power and trust.”
The case was investigated by the FBI Washington Field Office. It was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Sanjay Patel of the Civil Rights Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher R. Howland of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
WASHINGTON – Philip Dupree, 40, a former police officer with the Fairmount Heights, Maryland Police Department, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 74 months in prison following his conviction at trial on June 17, 2024, in connection with violating a man’s civil rights by using unreasonable force, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
A federal jury found Dupree guilty on June 17, 2024, of one count of deprivation of rights under color of law. In addition to the 74-month prison term, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered Dupree to serve threeyears of supervised release.
“When the defendant used unnecessary and excessive force on a man in handcuffs, he violated his duty and betrayed his oath to serve and protect,” said U.S. Attorney Pirro. “The Court’s sentence serves as a stark reminder that members of law enforcement must not break the faith with the communities we all serve.”
According to court documents, Dupree was on duty as a Fairmont Heights Police officer during the early morning hours of Aug. 4, 2019, when he conducted a traffic stop on Eastern Avenue NE, in the District of Columbia. After detaining the driver and the driver’s sister, Officer Dupree pepper-sprayed the driver in the face while the driver was handcuffed and seated in Dupree’s police car. The jury found that Dupree’s use of force constituted excessive force by a law enforcement officer.
“Our government requires police officers to abide by the laws they enforce and to protect the constitutional rights of all persons in their custody,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division. “Dupree abused his authority as a police officer, and today Dupree was held accountable for his actions.”
“Law enforcement officers have a duty to enforce the laws while protecting the rights of those they serve,” said Steven J. Jensen, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office. “Today’s sentence underscores this responsibility and demonstrates the FBI’s resolve to pursue public servants who abuse their positions of power and trust.”
The case was investigated by the FBI Washington Field Office. It was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Sanjay Patel of the Civil Rights Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher R. Howland of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
HAMMOND- Isaiah Castro, 23 years old, of Hammond, Indiana, was sentenced by United States District Court Judge Gretchen S. Lund after pleading guilty to possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, announced Acting United States Attorney M. Scott Proctor.
Castro was sentenced to 60 months in prison followed by 24 months of supervised release.
According to documents in the case, on April 16, 2024, Isaiah Castro distributed pills containing fentanyl while possessing a firearm. A search warrant resulted in the recovery of the firearm. Law enforcement also recovered another firearm with an extended magazine, firearm magazines, ammunition, and cash. Castro was previously convicted of resisting law enforcement and was on probation at the time.
This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Indiana High Intensity Drug Trafficking Task Force. This case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Caitlin M. Padula.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.
The UN Human Rights Committee today issued its findings on Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Latvia, North Macedonia, Spain and Viet Nam, following its review of these States parties during its 144th session.
The Committee noted with concern that despite constitutional guarantees, the judiciary remains vulnerable to political interference and pressure from criminal networks. It urged the State party to strengthen the independence and functioning of the judiciary by, among others, providing increased resources to the judicial system. The Committee also raised concerns about restrictions of peaceful assembly, intimidation of human rights defenders, and interference with trade unions, urging the authorities to respect and protect civic space.
Haiti
The Committee expressed concern about the impact of ongoing large-scale gang violence on the Haitian population and the inability of the police to stop it. It called on the State party to take steps to fully comply with its obligations to protect the right to life, including by implementing a public policy to dismantle the gangs and “self-defence brigades”, and to redouble efforts to prevent and eliminate corruption in state institutions, one of the root causes of insecurity and human rights violations.
Kazakhstan
The Committee expressed concern that counter-terrorism efforts may be unduly restricting civic space and about reports of the use of force and acts of torture by law enforcement officials against members of civil society. It urged the State party to bring its counter-terrorism efforts in line with its international human rights law obligations and ensure that all allegations of excessive use of force are properly investigated and that victims are provided with remedies.
Latvia
The Committee raised concerns about border protection measures restricting asylum access, which it said expose refugees to the risk of non-refoulement and ill-treatment. It called on the authorities to ensure all individuals in need of international protection are assessed fairly and efficiently and to investigate allegations of pushbacks and ill-treatment of refugees at border points.
North Macedonia
The Committee was concerned that despite progress achieved in some areas, including the adoption of a strategy for the inclusion of Roma 2022-2030, discrimination and marginalization against the Roma community remained significant, with its members experiencing high levels of poverty and exclusion, and subjected to ethnic profiling. It called on the authorities to embrace poverty reduction efforts and improve advocacy and awareness to address anti-Roma discrimination.
Spain
The Committee welcomed progress made in areas of memory, truth and reparation for past human rights violations, including the adoption of the 2022 Democratic Memory Law and the establishment of a Prosecutor for Human Rights and Democratic Memory, but expressed regrets that the 1977 Amnesty Law remains active and that proceedings initiated in 2010 for violations committed during the Spanish Civil War and the Franco Dictatorship have not resulted in any effective actions. It also expressed concern about violent incidents of pushbacks of refugees and the alleged excessive use of force by border agents in Ceuta in 2014 and Melilla in 2022, resulting in serious injuries and deaths. It called on the authorities to implement fair asylum procedures that respect the principle of non-refoulement and to investigate the incidents of excessive use of force in Ceuta and Melilla.
Viet Nam
The Committee welcomed the recent removal of the death penalty for eight crimes in Viet Nam. However, it remained concerned that the death penalty remains for ten crimes, including non-violent crimes. The Committee called on the State party to refrain from carrying out executions by maintaining a de facto moratorium. The Committee also raised concerns about reports of torture and ill treatment of detainees. The full Concluding Observations are available on the session page.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of United Nations: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
India has ramped up its fight against drug trafficking and abuse, adopting a zero-tolerance policy backed by structural, institutional, and community-driven reforms. In 2024 alone, Indian law enforcement agencies seized narcotics worth ₹25,330 crore—a 55% jump from the previous year—indicating an aggressive nationwide crackdown on drug networks.
At the forefront of this effort is the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), which has expanded its reach with 30 zonal offices, seven regional offices, and a growing force of 1,496 personnel. Equipped with Nar-K9 detection units and high-level coordination through the Narco-Coordination Centre (NCORD), the NCB is targeting synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine, mephedrone, and hashish—substances that severely impact mental and physical health.
Key breakthroughs in 2024 included a major joint operation involving the Indian Navy, NCB, and Gujarat Police that resulted in the seizure of over 3,100 kilograms of drugs from an offshore location. Separate raids led to the confiscation of more than 700 kilograms of methamphetamine and 82.5 kilograms of high-grade cocaine. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) also oversaw the destruction of over 1.17 lakh kilograms of narcotics as part of its intensified operations.
The government’s “whole-of-government approach” involves agencies such as the BSF, Indian Coast Guard, Assam Rifles, and RPF, alongside dedicated Anti-Narcotics Task Forces in every state. Inter-agency collaborations now extend to cybercrime units tackling drug trafficking via the darknet and cryptocurrencies.
On the rehabilitation front, the Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan (NMBA)—launched in 2020—has sensitised over 16.5 crore citizens and supported more than 27.7 lakh individuals through free treatment across 730 centres. The NMBA’s mobile app, helpline (14446), and volunteer programs ensure citizen involvement at the grassroots level.
Complementing this is the National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR), which funds 342 Integrated Rehabilitation Centres, 74 drop-in centres, 83 hospital treatment facilities, and outreach efforts targeting children under 18.
India’s anti-drug strategy is no longer limited to enforcement—it’s a people-led movement blending legal action, community participation, and public health to build a drug-free, empowered nation.
At the beginning of the month, I had the opportunity to represent the Law Library at the annual American Library Association (ALA) conference that took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, this year. It was my first year attending the ALA conference, and it was a sight to behold. From all exhibitors, whether publishing houses, universities offering MLIS degrees, or the Library of Congress pavilion, where I spent the majority of my time, there was something for everyone.
Library of Congress staff with former Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, at the LOC Pavilion at ALA.
As a representative of the Law Library at the Library of Congress pavilion, I answered questions about the services the Law Library offers and highlighted the work that the Library of Congress continues to provide to the public while communicating with attendees. Additionally, I had the opportunity to be present when former Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, stopped by to greet attendees as well as engage with our acting Librarian of Congress, Robert Newlen, who previously worked in the Law Library. As an employee in the Office of External Relations within the Law Library, the most fulfilling part of my time at the conference was being able to speak with other librarians about the services of the Library of Congress while also networking with other industry professionals, some even being colleagues from other service units in the Library of Congress that I do not get to interact with on a day to day basis.
There was also time to explore the city of brotherly love, which was exciting. On my walk to the famous Rocky statue, I stumbled upon another famous statue. A cast of the 1902-1904 version of The Thinker by the sculptor Auguste Rodin greets attendees at the entrance of the Rodin Museum, which was installed at the opening of the museum in 1929.
The Thinker at the entrance of the Rodin Museum in Center City, Philadelphia. Picture courtesy of Taylor Gulatsi.One of the two Rocky statues is at the top of the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Picture courtesy of Taylor Gulatsi.
I was not the only staff member from the Law Library in attendance at ALA; my colleague Sarah was in attendance and was happy to share her thoughts regarding her experience at the conference:
ALA was a great opportunity to hear from librarians from across the country who are working in all different types of libraries. I enjoyed attending sessions about tips for better serving library patrons, connecting with librarians around the world, preserving collections, and sharing historical information. Like Taylor, I took the opportunity to do some sightseeing as well, visiting the Liberty Bell, Old City Hall (home to the Supreme Court in the 1790s), and the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
The Liberty Bell, picture courtesy of Sarah Friedman.
Did you attend ALA? If so, what was one of your favorite parts of the conference?
Subscribe to In Custodia Legis – it’s free! – to receive interesting posts drawn from the Law Library of Congress’s vast collections and our staff’s expertise in U.S., foreign, and international law.
Seeking to expand Florida’s role in federal immigration enforcement, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in May 2025 submitted the state’s Immigration Enforcement Operations Plan to the Trump administration.
The plan, endorsed by President Donald Trump, says all of Florida’s roughly 47,000 law enforcement officers have received, or soon will receive, training to act as immigration officers. It’s part of an effort to, as the plan notes, “maintain state-led border security operations in the absence of federal support.”
The DeSantis plan includes a proposal to deputize Florida’s nine National Guard Judge Advocate General’s Corps officers to serve as immigration judges. JAG officers are attorneys who serve as legal advisers, prosecutors, defense counsel and military judges in a wide range of matters specific to the armed forces. That includes courts-martial and civil matters involving the military.
In general, a U.S. noncitizen may face removal from the country based on violations to the immigration laws. Those range from unauthorized entry to committing or being convicted of certain crimes.
Congress designated the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Department of Justice that houses the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, as the body exclusively responsible for deciding immigration removal cases. The office also details the authority and standards for how immigration judges conduct deportation hearings.
The McCarran-Walter Act also contains several provisions that subject most immigration court decisions such as removal or asylum to judicial review in federal courts. That can happen on direct appeal or as part of habeas corpus petitions that challenge the legality of detention or removal.
The system is far from perfect. But Congress designed it to ensure legal expertise and due process guarantees.
As an immigration scholar, I believe that allowing Florida JAG officers to serve as immigration judges bypasses this framework that is set in law, and violates the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.
JAG officers, including those in Florida’s National Guard, are not governed by the McCarran-Walter Act. They are military lawyers in an entirely separate system, overseen by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which defines the role of military judges. The code retains a unique military character that is substantially different from the judicial appellate system that governs immigration administrative rulings.
Simply put, neither Trump nor DeSantis can create an entirely new system of immigration judges outside of the one already established by Congress.
Federal agencies cannot deputize JAGs
A current immigration provision, known as the 287(g) program, authorizes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to collaborate with local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws.
But this provision only authorizes deputizing local law enforcement to assist “in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants – not the arbitration of deportation cases.
In the nearly three decades since 287(g) was enacted, no state or local officials – let alone military officers – have been permitted to act as immigration judges.
DeSantis’ plan seeks to convert Florida’s JAG officers from state to federal officials to function as immigration judges. Trump’s approval of this plan would also exceed the scope of his statutory authority.
An aerial view of the migrant detention center in Ochopee, Florida on July 4, 2025. Alon Skuy/Getty Images
JAGs cannot engage in domestic law enforcement
Even if Florida’s National Guard were federalized, JAG officers still could not legally serve as immigration judges.
The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, restricts the use of federal military personal in civilian law enforcement. It reflects a longstanding American principle: The military should not police civilians.
Immigration enforcement – including deciding whether someone is deported – is fundamentally a civilian enforcement function.
The only narrow exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restrictions require a clear statutory basis, such as Trump invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a law that would allow the president to rely on the military for domestic enforcement to quell a rebellion or widespread violence.
Due process concerns
The DeSantis plan also compromises constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair process for immigrants facing removal.
JAG officers, trained primarily in military law, would face immense challenges interpreting and applying immigration statutes. That’s especially true with only weeks of preparation, as DeSantis proposes.
But due process isn’t only about knowledge of legal technicalities. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process rights to all persons on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status.
By circumventing established procedures, DeSantis’ plan risks creating a system where expedited deportations come at the expense of accuracy and constitutional rights.
Raquel Aldana does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports has launched a youth-led national movement titled ‘Nasha Mukt Yuva for Viksit Bharat’ at the Youth Spiritual Summit in Varanasi, taking place from July 19–20. The initiative aims to harness the power of India’s youth—who make up over 65% of the population—to lead the charge against drug addiction and support the broader vision of a developed India.
Set against the spiritual backdrop of the river Ganga, the event is designed to combine cultural engagement with policy dialogue, forming a collective resolve rooted in India’s traditions and moral heritage.
The summit will see participation from key ministries such as Health, Social Justice, and Culture, as well as enforcement bodies like the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and medical institutions including AIIMS. Spiritual organisations from across the country are also contributing, creating a unified front that combines policy, community engagement, and moral guidance.
Central to the summit is the Kashi Declaration, a roadmap for a sustained, youth-led anti-drug movement. Each session at the summit will generate an actionable plan, culminating in a final resolution that outlines specific targets, assigns responsibilities, and sets clear implementation timelines. Progress will be reviewed during the Viksit Bharat Young Leaders Dialogue (VBYLD 2026) to maintain accountability.
Drawing inspiration from Swami Vivekananda’s message of self-discipline and service to the nation, the summit underscores the role of spiritual and moral strength in tackling addiction. The government is calling on young citizens to not only reject harmful habits but to serve as leaders in their communities.
This spiritual and strategic mobilisation marks a turning point in the national drug policy—bringing together ministries, law enforcement, and civil society under a common goal of empowering youth and building a healthier, drug-free India.
LA federal judge on Friday could deal another blow to President Donald Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship, even though a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month made it more difficult for lower courts to block White House directives.
A group of Democratic attorneys general
from 18 states and the District of Columbia will urge U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin at a hearing in Boston at 10 a.m. ET Friday to maintain an injunction he imposed in February that blocked Trump’s executive order nationwide.
The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States after February 19 if neither their mother nor father is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The states’ case is back in Sorokin’s courtroom so he can assess the impact of the Supreme Court’s landmark June 27th decision. In that 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court directed lower court judges like Sorokin that had blocked Trump’s policy to reconsider the scope of their orders.
Rather than address the legality of Trump’s executive order, the justices used the case to discourage nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions — in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country.
COMPLETE RELIEF
But the court raised the possibility that universal injunctions are still permissible in certain circumstances, including class actions, in which similarly situated people sue as a group, or if they are the only way to provide “complete relief” to litigants in a particular lawsuit.
Friday’s hearing will shed light on how lower courts plan to address what providing complete relief entails, said George Washington University law professor Paul Schiff Berman.
“One of the questions the Supreme Court left open in its nationwide injunction decision is whether states can assert claims on behalf of their citizens and, if so, whether a large-scale injunction would then be necessary to vindicate the rights of large numbers of citizens from large numbers of states,” Berman said.
Spokespersons for the White House and the attorneys general did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A ruling from Sorokin, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in favor of the states would be the second blow to Trump’s executive order this month. On July 10 at a hearing in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of Republican president George W. Bush, issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s order after he found that children whose citizenship status would be threatened by it could pursue their lawsuit as a class action.
The Democratic-led states, backed by immigrant rights groups, argue the White House directive violated a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment that guarantees that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
They have argued that, if the executive order is allowed to take effect, it would wreak havoc on the administration of federal benefits programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by making it difficult to verify eligibility.
They also argue that, because children often move across state lines or are born outside their parents’ state of residence, a “patchwork” of injunctions would be unworkable.
“Families are likely to be confused if federal benefits eligibility — let alone U.S. citizenship — differs by State,” the states wrote in a July 15 court filing.
They have urged Sorokin to double down on his February injunction, saying in the court filing that the Supreme Court decision has no bearing on the case before him.
“This Court correctly remedied the States’ injuries via a nationwide injunction, based on the same complete-relief principle that the Supreme Court recently recognized and endorsed,” the brief argued.
The Justice Department has countered that Sorokin’s injunction from February was “clearly overbroad and inappropriate.”
In a July 8 court filing, the department argued that individuals are best situated to litigate their own citizenship status.
LA federal judge on Friday could deal another blow to President Donald Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship, even though a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month made it more difficult for lower courts to block White House directives.
A group of Democratic attorneys general
from 18 states and the District of Columbia will urge U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin at a hearing in Boston at 10 a.m. ET Friday to maintain an injunction he imposed in February that blocked Trump’s executive order nationwide.
The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States after February 19 if neither their mother nor father is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The states’ case is back in Sorokin’s courtroom so he can assess the impact of the Supreme Court’s landmark June 27th decision. In that 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court directed lower court judges like Sorokin that had blocked Trump’s policy to reconsider the scope of their orders.
Rather than address the legality of Trump’s executive order, the justices used the case to discourage nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions — in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country.
COMPLETE RELIEF
But the court raised the possibility that universal injunctions are still permissible in certain circumstances, including class actions, in which similarly situated people sue as a group, or if they are the only way to provide “complete relief” to litigants in a particular lawsuit.
Friday’s hearing will shed light on how lower courts plan to address what providing complete relief entails, said George Washington University law professor Paul Schiff Berman.
“One of the questions the Supreme Court left open in its nationwide injunction decision is whether states can assert claims on behalf of their citizens and, if so, whether a large-scale injunction would then be necessary to vindicate the rights of large numbers of citizens from large numbers of states,” Berman said.
Spokespersons for the White House and the attorneys general did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A ruling from Sorokin, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in favor of the states would be the second blow to Trump’s executive order this month. On July 10 at a hearing in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of Republican president George W. Bush, issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s order after he found that children whose citizenship status would be threatened by it could pursue their lawsuit as a class action.
The Democratic-led states, backed by immigrant rights groups, argue the White House directive violated a right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment that guarantees that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
They have argued that, if the executive order is allowed to take effect, it would wreak havoc on the administration of federal benefits programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by making it difficult to verify eligibility.
They also argue that, because children often move across state lines or are born outside their parents’ state of residence, a “patchwork” of injunctions would be unworkable.
“Families are likely to be confused if federal benefits eligibility — let alone U.S. citizenship — differs by State,” the states wrote in a July 15 court filing.
They have urged Sorokin to double down on his February injunction, saying in the court filing that the Supreme Court decision has no bearing on the case before him.
“This Court correctly remedied the States’ injuries via a nationwide injunction, based on the same complete-relief principle that the Supreme Court recently recognized and endorsed,” the brief argued.
The Justice Department has countered that Sorokin’s injunction from February was “clearly overbroad and inappropriate.”
In a July 8 court filing, the department argued that individuals are best situated to litigate their own citizenship status.
Today, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast applauded the Justice Department’s indictment of aVOA employee for allegedly threatening Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene:
“Voice of America was built to fight propaganda — now it’s spewing hate at our own leaders. This is just another example in a long string of liberal taxpayer-funded hit jobs.”
David X. Sullivan, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that CARMELO CANCEL, also known as “Bebe,” 31, of Waterbury, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in Hartford to 37 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for supplying cocaine to two Waterbury drug trafficking organizations.
According to court documents and statements made in court, the FBI’s Waterbury Safe Streets Gang Task Force and other law enforcement agencies investigated two drug trafficking organizations based in the city of Waterbury. One organization was headed by Angel Quiros, also known as “Papa John,” and operated in the area of William Street, and the other was headed by Daniel Diaz-Rivera and operated in the area of Maple Avenue. The investigation, which included court-authorized wiretaps on multiple phones, video surveillance, GPS tracking of vehicles, and numerous controlled purchases of narcotics, revealed that the two organizations distributed cocaine, crack, and fentanyl through a network of sellers. Cancel supplied cocaine to both organizations, which worked together to further their operations.
Cancel, Quiros, Diaz-Rivera, and 14 other individuals were charged with federal offenses as a result of the investigation. Cancel and several codefendants were arrested on November 29, 2023. In association with the arrests, investigators executed multiple search warrants and seized approximately 700 grams of crack cocaine, more than 900 vials (“caps”) of crack, approximately 200 grams of loose fentanyl, more than 1,600 dose bags of fentanyl/heroin, two stolen firearms, numerous rounds of ammunition, and more than $39,000 in cash.
On April 23, 2025, Cancel pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Released on $100,000 bond, he is required to report to prison on September 17.
Quiros and Diaz-Rivera pleaded guilty to related charges. Quiros awaits sentencing and, on June 23, 2025, Diaz-Rivera was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment.
The FBI’s Waterbury Safe Streets Gang Task includes members from the FBI, the Waterbury Police Department, the Naugatuck Police Department, and the Connecticut Department of Correction. The DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Connecticut State Police, Wolcott Police Department, and Meriden Police Department have assisted the investigation.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Natasha Freismuth and Shan Patel through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Program. Additional information about the OCDETF Program can be found at https://www.justice.gov/OCDETF.
U.S. Attorney Sullivan thanked the Waterbury State Attorney’s Office for its cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of this case.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
TYLER, Texas – A Mexican national, illegally living in Tyler, has been charged with a federal firearms violation in the Eastern District of Texas, announced Acting U.S. Attorney Jay R. Combs.
Marco Imanol Ferrusca-Ortega, 23, was named in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury this week in the Eastern District of Texas charging him with being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm.
The indictment alleges that on July 8, 2025, Ferrusca-Ortega was found illegally in the United States and in possession of a firearm
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 (TCOs), 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 (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).
If convicted, Ferrusca-Ortega faces up to 15 years in federal prison and deportation.
This case is being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration; Homeland Security Investigations; and the Tyler Police Department. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dustin Farahnak.
A federal indictment is not evidence of guilt. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
LOS ANGELES – A former Amtrak employee was sentenced today to 25 months in federal prison for conspiring with her husband to steal nearly $1 million in COVID-19 pandemic-related unemployment insurance (UI) benefits and for fraudulently obtaining more than $63,000 in sickness benefits while she worked at the passenger railroad company.
Lizette Berrios Lathon, 48, of Moreno Valley, was sentenced by United States District Judge Fernando M. Olguin, who also ordered her to pay $1,061,667in restitution.
In November 2022, Lizette Lathon pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of wire fraud.
Previously, in July 2024, Judge Olguin sentenced Lathon’s husband, Kenneth Andrew Lathon, 50, also of Moreno Valley, to 54 months in federal prison and ordered him to pay $998,630 in restitution.
Kenneth Lathon pleaded guilty in November 2022 to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
From 2014 until at least September 2022, Lizette Lathon, in addition to her one-time duties as a service attendant for Amtrak, operated at least three tax preparation businesses: Miracle Tax Service, which was located on Los Angeles’ Miracle Mile; Hardcore Corp., which did business as “Hardcore Taxes”; and Lathon LLC, which did business as “LL Taxes.” The latter two companies were in Moreno Valley.
Lathon and her husband took advantage of the expanded eligibility for UI benefits made possible by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act signed into law in 2020. The CARES Act also established the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, which provided additional UI benefits to qualified individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic, including people who did not otherwise qualify for UI such as business owners, self-employed workers, independent contractors, and those with a limited work history.
In some instances, Lizette Lathon submitted fraudulent applications with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) for UI benefits using names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth that she obtained from former clients of her tax preparation businesses without the permission of those former clients. On the applications, she falsely asserted inflated income for the named claimants – many of whom had never lived in California – to receive the maximum benefit amount.
As a result of the fraudulent claims she filed, EDD authorized Bank of America to issue debit cards in the names of Lizette Lathon’s former clients, but the cards were mailed to addresses she and her family controlled. She and her husband then used the debit cards to make cash withdrawals at ATMs and to make purchases at retail stores.
During the conspiracy, which lasted from the spring of 2020 until March 2021, Lathon and her husband caused at least 44 fraudulent unemployment claims to be filed, resulting in losses to EDD and the United States Treasury of approximately $998,630.
Lizette Lathon, who was employed at Amtrak from 2000 to 2021, also schemed to defraud the Railroad Retirement Board out of sickness benefit payments by filing forged and false claims that stated she was being treated by a medical professional for pain and anxiety. Through this scheme, which lasted from September 2014 to January 2020, she fraudulently obtained approximately $63,047 in sickness benefit payments.
Kenneth Lathon possessed a .22-caliber rifle and 12-gauge shotgun despite his criminal history, which includes felony convictions in California state court for theft, cocaine possession, and fraud.
These matters were investigated by the Amtrak Office of Inspector General; the United States Railroad Retirement Board Office of Inspector General; the United States Department of Labor Office of Inspector General; the United States Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration; the California Employment Development Department; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Homeland Security Investigations; and the United States Postal Inspection Service.
Assistant United States Attorney Cory L. Burleson of the Riverside Branch Office prosecuted these cases.
Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud Hotline at (866) 720-5721 or via the NCDF Web Complaint Form at: https://www.justice.gov/disaster-fraud/ncdf-disaster-complaint-form.
SAN JOSE – Andrew Alvarado was sentenced today to 38 years in federal prison for racketeering conspiracy and 10 years in federal prison for conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering, to run concurrently, for his role in multiple murders and attempted murders as part of the self-proclaimed “Murder Squad,” a crew of Salinas-based Norteño criminal street gang members falling under the Monterey County Regiment Enterprise affiliated with the Nuestra Familia prison gang. U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman handed down the sentence.
Alvarado, 34, of Salinas, pleaded guilty on April 15, 2025, to one count of racketeering conspiracy and one count of conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering. According to court documents, the “Murder Squad” conducted more than a dozen “hunts,” tracking and shooting dozens of Salinas residents whom they perceived to be members of a rival gang for reasons as vague as they were Hispanic, bald, or wearing blue. The squad would often use military-style tactics, traveling in a convoy of vehicles with a designated shooter vehicle and a designated security/spotter vehicle, all of which were in constant communication via conference call. The security/spotter vehicles would patrol the streets, find a target, and transmit their location to the shooter vehicle. The shooters in the shooter vehicle would drive up, exit, fire at the victims until their magazines were empty, and speed away. The security/spotter vehicles would follow behind, ready to distract or intercept law enforcement and allow the shooter vehicle to escape.
Between 2015 and 2018, 11 people were killed during these hunts. Another 17 people were shot at but survived. Most of the victims were not actually members of a rival gang. Some of the victims were not the intended target at all but were nevertheless hit in the crossfire.
In connection with pleading guilty, Alvarado admitted that he personally participated in six “hunts” between January 2017 and May 2017. He was the shooter in three of those hunts, resulting in the deaths of three victims and the wounding of a fourth. In one instance, the hunt began when members of the “Murder Squad” gathered at a house to remember a family member killed in a car accident; they decided to commemorate the person’s death and lift their spirits by going out to kill another. Separately, Alvarado was in the security/spotter vehicle in three other hunts, resulting in the deaths of three victims, the wounding of four victims, and the near-miss of one victim.
“Gangs and the drugs and violence they bring with them wreak havoc on our communities and the hardworking families that live within them. The ruthless actions of the ‘Murder Squad’ shattered the public’s sense of safety and destroyed the lives of so many in Salinas,” said United States Attorney Craig H. Missakian. “The so-called ‘hunts’ that Alvarado and his crew ran were simply inhumane. This lengthy sentence means that Alvarado, like many of his fellow gang members, will now answer for his brazen crimes.”
“HSI San Francisco has a long and impactful history of investigating transnational gangs that threaten the safety of our communities in Northern California. We are committed to the pursuit of justice for the victims of these criminal enterprises and the violence they perpetuate. Today’s sentencing is the product of countless investigative hours and the significant investigative resources which HSI brings to bear in combatting violent transnational criminal organizations and apprehending dangerous gang members like Alvarado,” said Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Acting Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey Brannigan.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Freeman also sentenced the defendant to a five-year period of supervised release on count one and a three-year period of supervised release on count two, to run concurrently. Alvarado was immediately remanded into custody to begin serving his sentence.
Alvarado is the sixth member of the “Murder Squad” to be sentenced. Five other defendants each pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and one count of conspiracy to murder in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) and were previously sentenced on Sept. 10, 2024.
This prosecution was brought by the Violent Crime Strike Force and is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
Assistant U.S. Attorney George Hageman is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Nina Burney, Lakisha Holliman, and Yenni Weinberg. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by HSI, the FBI, the Salinas Police Department, and the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
Members of Hong Kong Customs Computer Forensic Laboratory win championship at 2nd International Digital Forensics Challenge The competition was co-organised by the Hong Kong Police Force, local universities and local technology enterprises. The participating teams comprised experts from law enforcement agencies, private enterprises and academic institutions. This year’s competition focused on the theme of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The scenario simulated a cyberattack on an investment company’s system, where fraudsters altered its AI model to develop a fictitious investment scheme, attempting to deceive investors into purchasing fake cryptocurrency. Competing teams were required to utilise their technical expertise to analyze and crack this complex digital crime scenario.
The Computer Forensic Laboratory of Hong Kong Customs is responsible for digital forensics work and providing technical assistance to frontline investigators. The award not only showcases Hong Kong Customs’ exceptional technical and professional expertise in the field of digital forensics but also highlights Hong Kong’s leading position in the global digital forensic arena.
Hong Kong Customs will continue to dedicate efforts to advancing digital forensics technology and collaborate closely with local and international partners to address increasingly complex cybercrime challenges. Issued at HKT 20:14
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
Members of Hong Kong Customs Computer Forensic Laboratory win championship at 2nd International Digital Forensics Challenge The competition was co-organised by the Hong Kong Police Force, local universities and local technology enterprises. The participating teams comprised experts from law enforcement agencies, private enterprises and academic institutions. This year’s competition focused on the theme of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The scenario simulated a cyberattack on an investment company’s system, where fraudsters altered its AI model to develop a fictitious investment scheme, attempting to deceive investors into purchasing fake cryptocurrency. Competing teams were required to utilise their technical expertise to analyze and crack this complex digital crime scenario.
The Computer Forensic Laboratory of Hong Kong Customs is responsible for digital forensics work and providing technical assistance to frontline investigators. The award not only showcases Hong Kong Customs’ exceptional technical and professional expertise in the field of digital forensics but also highlights Hong Kong’s leading position in the global digital forensic arena.
Hong Kong Customs will continue to dedicate efforts to advancing digital forensics technology and collaborate closely with local and international partners to address increasingly complex cybercrime challenges. Issued at HKT 20:14
Derby City Council recently welcomed Keith Fraser, Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Board, to see the work of the Derby Youth Justice Service (YJS) with young people and victims.
The Derby Youth Justice Service has achieved Quadrant 1 status, signifying its position as one of the highest-performing Youth Justice Services across England and Wales.
Following his visit, Mr Fraser told the service:
There were so many positive and inspiring aspects about your service. You demonstrated practice I have not often seen in other services, for example the children that were scrutinising the stop and search processes. You are also successfully keeping fewer children in police custody and also having fewer children remanded.
Derby YJS is performing exceptionally well, consistently achieving results below national averages for the rate of First Time Entrants into the justice system, the number of young people sentenced to custody, and rates of re-offending.
Key achievements highlighted during the visit included successful early intervention, which has seen more young people diverted away from possible offending and fewer young people being seen by the service as a result of going to court. Fewer children from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Communities have been referred into the service following a court appearance, while none are currently serving secure remand or sentence.
The service has also achieved 100% satisfaction rates from children’s feedback, with every child reporting they had been helped by Derby YJS.
The service attributes its success to several critical factors:
Committed practitioners who understand the children and young people well and can show the positive impact they make based on individual needs
A strong Multi-Agency Board working together to provide children with access a broad range of services
Stable senior leadership providing consistent direction
Service delivery based on insights to create tailored support for children, young people, and victims
A consistent understanding of risk across all levels.
Councillor Paul Hezelgrave, Derby City Council Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Skills, said:
We’re immensely proud of the Derby Youth Justice Service’s achievements, and it was a pleasure to welcome Keith Fraser to witness their excellent work firsthand.
The YJS consistently delivers exceptional results, creating opportunities for positive change for young people while ensuring the safety of our communities – a true testament to our passionate practitioners and strong partnership working.
Justice, Police committees to recommend Ad Hoc Committee on Mkhwanazi allegations
Parliament’s portfolio committees on Police and Justice will recommend to the National Assembly (NA) that an Ad Hoc Committee be established to probe the allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner, Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkwanazi.
Mkhwanazi has made several serious claims about, amongst others, an alleged criminal syndicate that has spread into law enforcement and intelligence services, and allegations that Police Minister Senzo Mchunu colluded with criminal elements to disband the Political Killings Task Team based in KZN.
This led to President Cyril Ramaphosa placing Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence and the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry, chaired by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga.
“Following consideration of a Parliamentary Legal Service legal opinion, the committees were of the view that an ad hoc committee is the best format to interrogate the allegations. Ad hoc committees are formed as per Rule 253 of the National Assembly. The rationale for this option is that the scope of such a committee is specific and time bound.
“The [committees were] presented with two alternative options: a full-blown investigative inquiry and two committees exercising their conferring powers in terms of NA Rule 169. The majority of committee members present in the meeting were in favour of the ad hoc committee, as members felt Parliament would thereby remain involved in such a process, exercising their oversight responsibility,” the committees said in a statement.
The two committees noted the “urgency of the matter” and reiterated the need to reach findings to “protect the integrity and standing of the entire criminal justice system.”
“Also, the committee highlighted the need to avoid duplication of the work of the commission of inquiry established by the President.
“Lastly, the [committees] emphasised the need for continuous oversight over the work of the Presidential commission of inquiry and requested that the interim reports submitted to the President be made available to Parliament. At the next meeting, the [committees are] expected to discuss the terms of reference and timelines for such an ad hoc committee.
“The committees will on 23 July 2025, as per the directive from the Speaker, recommend to the NA that an ad hoc committee be established to consider the matter. Furthermore, the committees’ recommendations will emphasise the need for urgency in considering the matter,” the statement concluded. – SAnews.gov.za
When thousands of Afghans were quietly flown to the UK under a secret relocation scheme, few knew it was triggered by an error. A defence official had accidentally leaked the personal data of nearly 19,000 Afghan nationals who had worked with British forces and were at risk of Taliban reprisals.
It has now also been revealed that the leaked list contained the identities of UK special forces and spies.
Even fewer knew that this misstep was being kept from the public by a rare and powerful legal device: a superinjunction. Now, after nearly two years of legal wrangling, the High Court has lifted that order, reopening the conversation about when secrecy in the justice system goes too far.
What is a superinjunction?
An injunction is a court order that stops someone from doing something (like publishing a story) or requires them to do something (like taking down an online post or handing back confidential documents).
A superinjunction goes one step further and does two things: it bans the publication of certain information (usually to protect privacy, safety or national security) and also bans anyone from revealing that the court order even exists.
In essence, it is a tool that provides legal invisibility: the story is hidden and so is the fact that it is being hidden. While an injunction works like a padlock on a filing cabinet, a superinjunction means you cannot even tell anyone the cabinet is even there.
Superinjunctions are exceptionally rare and controversial, precisely because they run counter to the principle of open justice. This is the idea that courts must operate in public, and that their decisions can be seen, scrutinised and questioned. Any derogation from open justice must be continuously justified and treated with considerable caution, especially where media freedom is curtailed.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Historically, superinjunctions have been used sparingly in cases involving blackmail, risks of violence against witnesses, the protection of children or to prevent tipping-off a subject before an order can be served (such as in fraud investigations), always with the aim of preventing harm or ensuring that justice is done.
The superinjunction committee (which was established in 2010 by Lord Neuberger to review growing concerns about such orders) made clear that the use of these legal tools must meet strict tests of necessity and proportionality. And, that they are only granted where serious harm (for example to life, safety or the administration of justice) is credibly at stake.
Why was a superinjunction granted in the Afghan data breach case?
In this case, the government argued that revealing the data leak could put lives in danger. The leaked spreadsheet contained names, contact details and, in some cases, family information of Afghan nationals who had applied to resettle in the UK. Many feared Taliban retaliation.
So, in September 2023, the Ministry of Defence asked the High Court for an injunction to stop media outlets from reporting on the leak. The judge did not just grant that request, he escalated it to a superinjunction, banning any mention of the case or the fact of the order.
It was described at the time as “unprecedented” in its scope. Journalists, even those who had already discovered the breach, were effectively gagged. The public had no idea any of it was happening.
Why did the court later decide to lift the secrecy?
After multiple hearings and appeals, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled on July 15 2025 that the superinjunction should be discharged once and for all. A government-commissioned review found that the leak may not have spread as widely as initially feared, and that Taliban reprisals were unlikely to be triggered solely by someone appearing on the leaked list.
The judge concluded that while the leak was deeply serious, continued secrecy was no longer necessary, and that the harm of suppressing public debate and scrutiny now outweighed the risks of disclosure. To put it plainly, the balance tipped.
Protection v cover-up
Superinjunctions are not inherently wrong. There are situations where short-term secrecy is essential, for instance for the purposes of shielding vulnerable parties like children or genuinely guarding national security.
But the Afghan case exemplifies the dangers of allowing secrecy to persist too long or too broadly. For nearly two years, the public was kept in the dark about a data breach involving tens of thousands of lives – including British citizens – and a government response that may ultimately cost the taxpayer “several billion pounds”.
In this context, secrecy risked becoming a form of institutional self-protection, shielding the Ministry of Defence and the government from political fallout, legal scrutiny and accountability, rather than safeguarding people from actual harm.
The principle of open justice is at the heart of democratic life. Superinjunctions, by their nature, run directly against that principle. There are times when secrecy might be seen as necessary, but it must always be tightly scoped and justified with evidence while serving the public interest; not convenience or image. By lifting this superinjunction, the courts affirmed that the British public has a right to know not only what went wrong, but that something went wrong at all.
Alexandros Antoniou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
According to the BBC more than 30,000 criminal cases collapsed between October 2020 and September 2024 due to lost, damaged or missing evidence.[1] It found that around one in 20 prosecutions by the Met had been dropped due to missing evidence between 2020 and 2024, compared to one in 50 across England and Wales.
Following a FOI request from the BBC and University of Leicester, the number of cases reported as missing evidence were found to be increasing: in 2020, 7,484 prosecutions collapsed due to lost, missing or damaged evidence, compared to 8,180 in 2024, a 9 per cent increase.
The BBC reported that the cases recorded included:
Physical evidence, including forensic evidence, being lost, damaged or contaminated during storage
Lost digital evidence, including victim interview footage or body worn camera footage
Witness statements or pathology reports not being provided by the police
Key evidence not collected from the crime scene.
Tomorrow, the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee will meet to question the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime on the Met’s ability to safely store and collect evidence.
The Committee will also question the Deputy Mayor about online radicalisation, the Met’s recruitment pathways and the Met’s Culture, Diversity and Inclusion Directorate.
The guests are:
Kaya Comer-Schwartz, Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime
Kenny Bowie, Director of Strategy and MPS Oversight, Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)
The meeting will take place on Wednesday 16 July 2025 from 10am in the Chamber at City Hall, Kamal Chunchie Way, E16 1ZE.
Media and members of the public are invited to attend.
The meeting can also be viewed LIVE or later via webcast or YouTube.
