Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CR 16-2362-WJ

LONNIE JACKSON,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO UNITED STATES’ SEALED RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO UNSEAL RECORD
Lonnie Jackson, Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel of record, Assistant
Federal Public Defender John F. Robbenhaar, hereby submits his reply to the government’s
response (Doc. 110) (“Response”) to his motion to unseal record (Doc. 102) (“Motion”).
Ironically, the government files its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Unseal under seal.
In doing so and as justification, the government claims that the “case is still pending”, that there
is an active protective order, and very generally that there are “legitimate interests” in keeping
“law enforcement matters dealing with informants, undercover agents, and NCIC functions” out
of the public view. Unfortunately, the government completely fails to address Mr. Jackson’s
Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that a defendant enjoy a public trial.
The government makes reference to a protective order filed in this case which prohibits
the dissemination of audio and video files produced by the United States in discovery. The
defense has abided by the original protective order (Doc. 18) and its subsequent stricter iteration
(Doc. 83) and will continue to do so. That protective order governing discovery items, however,
is not germane to this issue of court filings.

1

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 2 of 10

The government states that it opposes Mr. Jackson’s motion to unseal “on the basis that
the litigation in this case is still pending . . . .” 1 Mr. Jackson fails to see the import, and the
government declines to expound. The Sixth Amendment is not somehow limited until after
litigation has concluded. To the contrary, the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that a defendant
enjoy a public trial are needed precisely during the pendency of a litigation.
“The requirement of a public trial is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may
see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested
spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance
of their functions...”. Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46, 104 S. Ct. 2210, 2215, 81 L. Ed. 2d 31
(1984) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Much of the complaints in the
government’s Response center around the “presence of interested spectators” and their attempts
to keep Mr. Jackson’s “triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance
of their functions.” It is odd that the government argues against the Sixth Amendment’s bedrock
principle embodied in the public trial clause.
Importantly, the Supreme Court held in Waller that the protections of the Sixth
Amendment’s public trial clause are not to be limited to a jury trial. “These aims and interests
are no less pressing in a hearing to suppress wrongfully seized evidence. . . . [S]uppression
hearings often are as important as the trial itself.” Waller, 467 U.S. at 46. Mr. Jackson submits
that the litigation before this Court is as important as the trial itself, and he invokes his Sixth
Amendment right to have it proceed publicly. Indeed, the defendant is the only party that may
invoke the public-trial guarantee, as its protections are meant for him. “The central aim of a
criminal proceeding must be to try the accused fairly, and ‘[o]ur cases have uniformly

1

Doc. 110 at 1.

2

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 3 of 10

recognized the public-trial guarantee as one created for the benefit of the defendant.’” Id.
(quoting Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 380, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 2905 (1979)).
The government presents a rather selective statement of the law on this issue. In fact, in
all three of the Tenth Circuit cases that address the sealing of court documents, the Tenth Circuit
decided against sealing. See United States v. Pickard, 733 F. 3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2013); Mann v.
Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007); Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir.
2012). The government cites to two of these cases, but unfortunately neglects to mention this
most-salient point. And, while it is correct that the Court possesses the authority to seal
documents, and whereas its decisions to do so or not are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, the
legal underpinnings of such decisions are reviewed de novo. See Pickard, 733 F.3d, at 1302
(“[W]e review de novo the legal principles that the district court applied in considering . . . a
motion [to seal].”) It is instructive that the Tenth Circuit references “a motion” here: in filing its
documents under seal without first motioning the Court, the government deprives this Court of
what is rightfully within its discretion and summarily discards constitutional principles, leaving
no record for judicial review.
In addition to depriving Mr. Jackson of his Sixth Amendment constitutional right, the
government’s heavy-handed sealing deprives the public of its right to access. “Courts have long
recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.” Mann, 477 F.3d, at 1149 (citing
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306; Lanphere & Urbaniak v.
Colorado, 21 F.3d 1508, 1511 (10th Cir. 1994)). Where, as here, “documents are used to
determine litigants' substantive legal rights, a strong presumption of access attaches.” Colony
Ins. Co., 698 F.3d, at 1242 (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121
(2nd Cir. 2006)).

3

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 4 of 10

As the government notes, this right of access is not absolute, but “[t]he party seeking to
overcome the presumption of public access to the documents bears the burden of showing some
significant interest that outweighs the presumption.” Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann, 477 F.3d, at 1149 (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Tenth
Circuit characterizes this as a “heavy burden.” Id. at 1292–93 (“[T]he parties must articulate a
real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform
our decision-making process. Because the parties have not come close to meeting that heavy
burden, we deny the motions to seal.”) “[T]he district court, in exercising its discretion, must
‘weigh the interests of the public, which are presumptively paramount, against those advanced
by the parties.’” Pickard, 733 F.3d, at 1302 (quoting Helm, 656 F.3d, at 1292 (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
It is worth noting that this “heavy burden,” requiring “significant,” “substantial,” and
“real” interests to overcome, references merely the public’s right of access to court documents.
A criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights are equally, if not more, zealously respected.
See Waller, supra, 467 U.S. at 46. Surely this demands that this Court unseal all documents
previously filed under seal in this matter. Mr. Jackson will respond in turn, however, to the
items addressed by the government in its Response.
Preliminarily, Mr. Jackson notes that, for none of the below documents, including those
filed by Mr. Jackson, was the correct procedure for filing under seal followed. This has deprived
the public of its opportunity to opine on the sealing of this document. Mr. Jackson therefore
submits that the first step in resolving this issue is for the Court to direct the parties to file public
Motions to Seal for each and every document they wish to remain under seal, outlining the

4

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 5 of 10

interests implicated that they believe outweigh the public’s right to access and Mr. Jackson’s
right to a public trial.
1.

Docs. 17 and 18

The government notes that these documents are, respectively, an unopposed Motion and
Order for Protective Order. Mr. Jackson does not oppose these documents remaining under seal;
however, as noted above, he requests that the government file into the record a proper Motion to
Seal Doc. 17.
2.

Doc. 47

The government argues that this document should remain under seal because it “mentions
the use of a confidential informant and concomitantly discusses investigative techniques.” 2 The
government has waived this argument. The investigative techniques and use of paid informants
in the Surge are already well-known to the public. The parties have discussed them in open
court. They have been reported on in the media. They have been referenced in published court
opinions. The government has no grounds to complain about publicity that this case has
engendered, when it was the government itself that did much to foment press coverage in the
first place. Indeed, in the wake of the initial arrests in these cases, “an ATF agent” detailed the
use of confidential informants and other investigative techniques used. See Defendant’s Exhibit
A – August 12, 2016 Albuquerque Journal article. Moreover, in the trial of Gaspar Leal, 16-cr3069-JB-1, the government actually called to the witness stand one of those paid informants,
whose very existence is now so compellingly confidential, to testify in an open courtroom. And
now the government argues that the mere mention of the fact that paid informants were utilized

2

Doc. 110 at 3.

5

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 6 of 10

in the Surge outweighs the right to public access and Mr. Jackson’s Sixth Amendment right to a
public trial?
The government also fails to address why the entire document must be sealed and why,
for example, redacting those specific portions out of a publicly-viewable version of the document
would be an insufficient remedy. Nor does the government provide any legal authority for why
the discussion of use of confidential informants or investigative techniques requires sealing.
3.

Doc. 48

The government points out that this document is, in fact, a document filed ex parte by
Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson concurs and withdraws his request to unseal this document.
4.

Docs. 64 and 67

The government fails to address why the documents-in-chief must be sealed and why, for
example, sealing only Exhibit 1 or redacting the “sensitive personal information” out of a
publicly-viewable version of Exhibit 1 would be an insufficient remedy. Nor does the
government provide any legal authority to support the proposition that the names and races of
people who are, in effect, fact witnesses constitute “sensitive personal information” that would
require sealing. Nonetheless, Mr. Jackson would not object to the redaction of all but those
individuals’ first and last initials from a publicly viewable pleading, nor would he object to the
filing of a sealed key identifying those individuals by number or alias.
The defense has no objection to Exhibit 1 to Doc. 64 remaining under seal, given that it
was not accepted by the Court and, therefore, is not part of the record. Doc. 64 itself, however,
should be unsealed, as should Doc. 67.
5.

Docs. 82, 83

6

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 7 of 10

The government notes that these documents are, respectively, a second unopposed
Motion and Order for Protective Order. Mr. Jackson does not oppose these documents
remaining under seal; however, as noted above, he requests that the government file into the
record a proper Motion to Seal Doc. 82.
6.

Doc. 86

Given that this document was stricken from the record, Mr. Jackson has no objection to
it, or the Exhibit attached thereto, remaining under seal.
7.

Docs. 89 and 90

The government argues that Doc. 89, its Motion to Reconsider, is “replete with law
enforcement sensitive information as to the ATF surge and other matters.” Mr. Jackson is unsure
what sensitive information the government is referring to and believes that the government
should be required to elaborate with more specificity and supporting legal authority, if it wishes
for this document to remain under seal.
As for the government’s concerns over Exhibit 1 to Document 89 and the information
about individuals who were investigated but not charged as part of the Surge contained within
Document 89 itself, Mr. Jackson incorporates by reference the argument contained in Paragraph
4, discussing Docs. 64 and 67, above.
Doc. 90 is a quite unremarkable Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to United
States’ Motion to Reconsider. Mr. Jackson is puzzled over the government’s insistence that this
document remain under seal, and requests that the government set forth its rationale for it
remaining under seal.
8.

Doc. 97

7

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 8 of 10

The government urges this Court to seal Mr. Jackson’s Response to the government’s
Motion to Reconsider. As grounds, the government complains that Mr. Jackson’s Response is a
“no-holds-barred attack against the motives of Special Agent Johnson and ATF, accusations of
which that [sic] have yet to be ruled upon by this Court.” The same could be said of the offense
with which Mr. Jackson is charged in his Indictment, which the government had no hesitation to
file publicly and supplement with a press release.
In any event, while Mr. Jackson does not agree with the characterization of the contents
of his Response to the government’s Motion to Reconsider, the more salient point is that the
government’s hyper-sensitivity is not a proper ground for sealing a court document. Mr. Jackson
is sympathetic to how the ATF’s questionable conduct during the Surge would be embarrassing
to the government, but all the same, “[s]ealing of judicial records is not considered appropriate if
it is done merely to protect parties from embarrassment.” 3 See, e.g., Mann, 477 F.3d, at 1149
(holding that any privacy concern implicated with respect to a detailed history of an ongoing
family feud and Alzheimer’s diagnosis is not “sufficiently critical to outweigh the strong
presumption in favor of public access to judicial records”).
As for the government’s concerns over the discussion of informants, investigative
matters, and the reference to uncharged individuals and their races by name, Mr. Jackson
incorporates all of the arguments previously-made herein discussing those points.
9.

Doc. 98

Mr. Jackson agrees that this item should remain under seal, in accordance with the
provisions of the second protective order (Doc. 83). Mr. Jackson acknowledges that he did not

3

Sealing Court Records and Proceedings: A Pocket Guide (Exhibit A to Mr. Jackson’s Opposed Motion to Unseal
Record – Doc. 102) at 17 (citing Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1998); Kamakana v. City and
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)).

8

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 9 of 10

follow correct procedure in filing Doc. 98 under seal and will file a proper Motion to Seal
Document 98 if so ordered by the Court.
10.

Doc. 101

Mr. Jackson failed to specify this document in his original Motion to Unseal Record, but
he hereby moves to unseal this document, as well. The government argues that it should remain
under seal because it “references uncharged individuals and their racial backgrounds.” 4 Mr.
Jackson incorporates all of the arguments previously made herein discussing that point.
11.

Doc. 110

Finally, Mr. Jackson moves the Court to unseal the government’s Response to his Motion
to Unseal Record, as the government failed to follow proper sealing procedure and has offered
no grounds for sealing that would overcome the presumption of public access and Mr. Jackson’s
Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Jackson respectfully persists in his motion that the Court unseal the
entire record of this case or, in the alternative, order the parties to file a public Motion to Seal,
detailing which specific portions of the document(s) necessitate redaction or sealing, what
competing interests those portions implicate that outweigh the public right to access and Mr.
Jackson’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, and providing supporting legal authority, as to
each individual document they desire to remain under seal, and to order the government to
follow proper sealing procedure for all future filings in this case.

4

Doc. 110 at 5.

9

 Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ Document 111 Filed 08/27/18 Page 10 of 10

Respectfully Submitted,
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
111 Lomas NW, Suite 501
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505) 346-2489
Electronically filed August 27, 2018
/s/ John F. Robbenhaar
Assistant Federal Public Defender
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 27, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification to the following: David Walsh
and Norm Cairns, Assistant United States Attorneys.
Electronically filed August 27, 2018
/s/ John F. Robbenhaar
Assistant Federal Public Defender

10

 9/29/2016

Email

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects   Albuquerque Journal
Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ
Document 111-1 Filed 08/27/18 Page 1 of 7

  Password

 Remember Me 

  Login   Cancel

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects
By Scott Sandlin / Journal Staff Writer
Published: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 12:22pm
Updated: Friday, August 12th, 2016 at 11:29pm

Agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives executed arrest warrants Wednesday
morning in a multi­agency crackdown of violent offenders in the Albuquerque area. (Courtesy of ATF)
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A multiagency crackdown on violent offenders led to charges against more than 100
suspects in the metro area, federal officials announced Friday, describing the monthslong undercover campaign’s
results as “unprecedented.”

Special Agent in Charge Thomas G. Atteberry of the ATF Phoenix
Field Division tells a news conference Friday that the multi­agency law

DEFENDANT’S
EXHIBIT

A

https://www.abqjournal.com/825137/104­charged­in­federal­firearm­and­drug­crackdown­in­bernalillo­county.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium…

1/7

 9/29/2016

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects   Albuquerque Journal
Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ
Document 111-1 Filed 08/27/18 Page 2 of 7

enforcement operations targeted Albuquerque because the city has so
much violent crime. (Jim Thompson/Albuquerque Journal)
U.S. Attorney Damon Martinez and Thomas Atteberry, the special agent in charge of the Phoenix office of the
lead agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, announced the results during a news
conference Friday at the U.S. Attorney’s Office joined by heads of other law enforcement agencies.
They said the undercover operation targeted Albuquerque because of its statistically high rate of violent crime.
“What’s unique about Albuquerque is the level of violence here – it’s wide open,” said one agent in a later
interview. A founder of the enhanced undercover operations team who has participated since the first one was
launched in Phoenix in 2009, he said he recalled seeing a man – a person he learned had multiple prior convictions
– openly riding a bicycle down an Albuquerque street carrying a shotgun.
Many of the suspects were already on local law enforcement’s radar, and some had been charged in state District
Court, and had been released. But there were some local law enforcement were not aware of, an agent said.
Arrests that started July 7 and ended this week yielded charges against 104 individuals. A handful have been
released and 10 are fugitives – almost all charged with firearms and drug trafficking offenses. Two homicides
were also solved during the investigation, Martinez said. Four individuals have been indicted in state court in
connection with those deaths.
“The premise is some individuals commit a disproportionate amount of crime,” he said. “We can take control …
This is law enforcement coming together as one to address the problem.”
The operation began in April with a small team gathering information and conducting analysis to target career
offenders using proven strategies from similar surges in other crime­ridden cities, including Cleveland; New
Haven, Conn.; Oakland, Calif.; St. Louis; Stockton, Calif.; and Phoenix.

Warrants executed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives resulted in the arrests of more than 100 people. (Courtesy of
ATF)
This operation, said Will Glaspy of the Drug Enforcement Administration, “exceeded all expectations.”
Officers took 127 firearms, including a number of assault­type weapons. They also purchased and seized more
than 17 pounds of methamphetamine, more than 2.5 pounds of heroin, 14 ounces of crack cocaine, over a pound
of cocaine and some Ecstasy, and seized four vehicles.
The meth was of a purity that suggested it was being sold close to where it was being created, an ATF agent said
later.

https://www.abqjournal.com/825137/104­charged­in­federal­firearm­and­drug­crackdown­in­bernalillo­county.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium…

2/7

 9/29/2016

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects   Albuquerque Journal
Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ
Document 111-1 Filed 08/27/18 Page 3 of 7

Atteberry said the effort would not have been possible without aid from other state and local agencies, whose
representatives stood in a scrum at the front of the room at the news conference. The Albuquerque Police
Department, for instance, provided air support and more. A New Mexico State Police tactical unit provided
personnel and equipment, especially as the arrests were underway.
ATF brought in “the best of the best to deal with the worst of the worst,” Atteberry said. He said the results were
“unprecedented.”
The operation relied on undercover agents and confidential informants, called “sources of information.”
Informants went to houses and apartments in Albuquerque’s Southeast and West Side, meeting and getting to
know past offenders, and sometimes nonfelons, who could provide guns – often stolen – and narcotics, according
to the ATF.
That intelligence was shared with undercover agents who analyzed it and ultimately went in with various secret
recording devices to establish probable cause for the arrests.
“We ran into nonfelons going out and buying guns and selling (them) to put on the street,” one agent told the
Journal.
A technical aide accompanied the elite team of some 10 undercover agents, men and women, selected from around
the country for what they knew ahead of time would be three or four months of intense work.
“You need human intelligence, though sometimes it’s flawed,” said the undercover agent. An hour of undercover
work typically spells two more hours of paperwork that night.
Potential penalties run the gamut and could range from five years on a crack distribution conviction or a potential
life sentence for anyone deemed by the court to be an armed career criminal. A separate statute adds consecutive
time to the underlying sentence if a firearm is used in a drug­trafficking crime.
Charges
Charged in 2nd Judicial District Court in connection with two homicides are Daniel Begay, second­degree murder
and evidence tampering in the May 31 death of J.S.; Edward James Chavez, first­degree murder of A.S. on June
10­11, felon in possession of a firearm and evidence tampering; Leslie Marie Mora, harboring a felon (Chavez),
receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle and felon in possession of a firearm; and Dominick Mora­Soliz,
harboring a felon (Chavez).
Other defendants arrested:
— Sean Burns, 30, two counts of distributing cocaine base, more commonly known as “crack.” If convicted,
Burns faces a statutory mandatory minimum of five years and a maximum of 40 years in prison. Arrested on July
8. In custody.
— Robert Lovato, 43,  distributing methamphetamine. Lovato faces five to 40 years in prison. Arrested July 6. In
custody.
— Lonnie Jackson, 46,  distributing methamphetamine. Ten years to  life upon conviction. Arrested July 6, 2016.
Detained pending trial.
— Diamond Coleman, 28, three counts of distributing methamphetamine; three counts of being a felon in
possession of firearms and ammunition; and two counts of using firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime. He faces five to 40 years on the meth trafficking charges and up to 10 more on felon in possession charges,
plus a total of 30 years on the firearm/drug trafficking charges, consecutive to any sentence  on the other charges.
Arrested Aug. 8. Detained pending trial.
— Willie Griffin, 44, and Gonzalo Revet, 48, with conspiracy and two counts of distributing methamphetamine.
They each facefive to 40 years in prison. Griffin was arrested on July 6 and remains in custody. Revet was arrested
on Aug. 10  and is in custody pending a detention hearing scheduled Monday.
— Brandon Joshua Hunt, 26, distributing cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Hunt faces a
statutory maximum of 20 years for cocaine trafficking  and up to 10 years on the felon in possession charge. He is
in state custody on unrelated charges and will be transferred to federal custody to face charges.

https://www.abqjournal.com/825137/104­charged­in­federal­firearm­and­drug­crackdown­in­bernalillo­county.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium…

3/7

 9/29/2016

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects   Albuquerque Journal
Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ
Document 111-1 Filed 08/27/18 Page 4 of 7

— Keith Thompson, 47, and Matthew Sandoval, 37, distributing heroin and methamphetamine. Each faces up to
20 years in prison. They were arrested on July 7. Both are in custody.
— Mike Jensen, 33, and Michael Ryan Prost, 36, two counts of distributing methamphetamine; Jensen also faces
possession of a stolen firearm and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. They five to 40 years
for meth trafficking. Jensen also faces 10 years on the stolen firearm charge and a mandatory five years in prison
on the firearm/drug trafficking charge consecutive to any sentence on the other charges. Jensen was arrested July
11 and is in custody. Prost was arrested on Aug. 10. He has detention hearing scheduled Monday.
—  Margarito Ruiz, 35, distributing methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition.Penalty five to 40 for conviction on the meth charges and 10 years on the felon in possession charge.
Ruiz is considered a fugitive.
— Carlos Vasquez, 46, distributing cocaine and methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm. Up to 20
years on the drug trafficking charges and up to 10 on the felon in possession charge. Currently in state custody.
— Francisco Garcia­Lopez, 19, two counts of distributing methamphetamine and one count of using a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Potential penalty up to 20 years on meth trafficking and a mandatory
minimum of five years consecutive to other charges for the firearm/drug charge. Arrested July 11. Released
pending trial on conditions including pretrial supervision.
— Nathan Talamante, 31,  four counts of distributing heroin and one count of distributing methamphetamine.
Five to 40 years. Arrested July 12, and released on conditions including pretrial supervision.
— Joshua Sedillo, 30,  two counts of distributing methamphetamine, and Ramon Quezada 31,  one count of
distributing methamphetamine. Each faces five to 40 years. Sedillo was arrested on July 7 and Quezada  July 26.
Both are detained.
— Fernando Antillon­Parra, 20,  distributing meth. Penalty five  to 40 years if convicted. Arrested in the Western
District of Texas July 10 and transferred to New Mexico Aug. 2. Released on conditions including pretrial
supervision.
— Eric Dean Repsis, 46, distributing methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Faces five to
40 years on meth trafficking and up to 10 years as a the felon in possession. Arrested July 20. Released pending
trial on conditions including pretrial supervision.
— Alex Villarreal, 34, distributing methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.
He faces five to 40 years for meth trafficking andup to 10 as a felon in possession. Arrested July 7. Detained
pending trial.
— Jesus Parra, 29, distributing methamphetamine. Five to 40 years. Parra is considered a fugitive.
— Elias Sanchez, 35,  two counts of distributing methamphetamine. Five to 40 years. Arrested July 7. Detained
pending trial.
— Noe Urias, 35, Angelica Marie Santiesteban, 39, and Patrick Zamora, 21, charged with conspiracy. In addition,
it charges Urias with three counts of distributing methamphetamine; Santiesteban with two counts of distributing
methamphetamine; and Zamora with one count of distributing methamphetamine. They each face five to 40 years.
Urias arrested Aug. 10,  Santiesteban July 6  and Zamora  July 13. Santiesteban and Zamora are detained pending
trial. Urias is in custody pending a detention hearing scheduled Monday.
— Brent Williams, 34, and Jovas Brown, 29,  conspiracy; Williams also faces four counts of distributing
methamphetamine and one count of distributing cocaine base, or “crack,”  and Brown two counts of distributing
methamphetamine and one count of distributing cocaine base.  Williams could be sentenced to 10 years to life if
convicted. Brown faces five to 40 years. Both were arrested July 6, and remain in custody.
— Cody Jones, 31, and Dustin Swint, 29, conspiracy; Jones also charged with four counts of distributing meth and
Swint with one count of meth distribution. Each faces five to 40 years. Arrests were Aug. 3. Both are detained.
— Davon Johnson, 43, distributing MDMA or “Ecstasy.” Up to 20 years if convicted.  Arrested July 6, detained
pending trial.

https://www.abqjournal.com/825137/104­charged­in­federal­firearm­and­drug­crackdown­in­bernalillo­county.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium…

4/7

 9/29/2016

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects   Albuquerque Journal
Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ
Document 111-1 Filed 08/27/18 Page 5 of 7

— Timothy Dilley, 34, and Jonathan Aragon, 37,  conspiracy and distributing methamphetamine and heroin. Five
to 40 years. Dilley was arrested July 7,  Aragon July 6. Both are detained.
— Yusef Casanova, 45,  distributing methamphetamine; being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition;
and possession of an unregistered, short­barreled shotgun. Up to 20 years on the meth trafficking charge, and up to
10 on the felon in possession and unregistered firearm charges. Arrested  July 25. Detained.
— Paul Chestnut, 37, and Larry Mendez, 43,  conspiracy.  Chestnut also charged with two counts of distributing
meth and Mendez with one count of distribution. Each faces five to 40 years. Mendez was arrested July 11 and is
detained.  Chestnut  is  a fugitive.
— Ray Martinez, 44, Simon A. Shields, 36, and David Corral­Valenzuela, 44, conspiracy and distributing
methamphetamine. Corral­Valenzuela also is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and unlawful
reentry into the United States by a previously deported alien. Martinez, Shields and Corral­Valenzuela each face 
five to 40 years. Martinez also faces 10 years on the firearms charge and two years on the immigration charge.
Martinez was arrested on July 7,  and Shields and Corral­Valenzuela  July 6. All are detained.
— Inkosi Grandberry, 34, two counts of distributing heroin; two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms
and ammunition; and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Five to 40 possible on the heroin
trafficking charges and up to 10 years for felon in possession. Grandberry also faces a mandatory  five years on
the firearm/drug charge consecutive to any sentence on the other charges. Arrested  July 6. Detained.
— Carlos Anderson, 36, distributing methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition. Five to 40 years on the meth charge and 10 years on the felon in possession charge. Arrested on July
6. Detained.
— Cody Castillo, 30, and Jessica Hofer, 25, conspiracy,distributing methamphetamine. Five to 40 years if
convicted. Castillo was arrested July 7, Hofer  July 20. Castillo is detained. Hofer was released on conditions.
— Jorge Chacon, 32, distributing methamphetamine; four counts of being a felon in possession of firearms and
ammunition; possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number; and using a firearm in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime. Faces five to 40 years for meth trafficking, 10 years in prison on the felon in possession
and obliterated serial number. Also potential five years consecutive to any sentence on the other charges. Arrested
on July 6. Detained.
— Antonio Perez­Contreras, 29, and Jesus Manuel Garcia, 43, conspiracy and distributing methamphetamine.
Perez­Contreras also has a second count of meth distribution; being an alien in possession of firearms and
ammunition; and unlawful reentry into the United States by a previously deported alien. Garcia also is charged
with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. They face 10 years to life for conspiracy and meth
trafficking. Perez­Contreras falso faces 10 years as an alien in possession and two years on the immigration
charge. Garcia also faces 10 years as a felon in possession. Garcia was arrested July 6, and is detained. Perez­
Contreras was transferred from state custody to federal custody and is  to be arraigned on Monday.
— Marcus Sowell, 19, Damon Giles, 22, Michael Borrego, 24, Adrian Banks, 19, and Marcus Lewis, 26, 
violating the federal firearms and narcotics laws. The indictment charges Sowell with possessing an unregistered
short­barreled shotgun; Giles with two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms, four counts of dealing in
firearms without a license, and one count of distributing cocaine; Borrego with three counts of dealing in firearms
without a license and possessing an unregistered short­barreled shotgun;  Banks with one count of dealing in
firearms without a license and being a felon in possession of a firearm; and Lewis with one count of distributing
cocaine. Giles, Borrego and Banks each face five years for dealing in firearms without a license; Sowell and
Borrego  five years possessing unregistered short­barreled shotguns; Giles and Lewis face  20 years on the cocaine
trafficking; and Giles and Banks face 10 years  on felon in possession charges. Sowell and Borrego were arrested
on July 7 and released  on conditions. Lewis was arrested on July 18 and is detained. Giles and Banks were
transferred from state to federal custody. Giles is detained. Banks is set for arraignment Monday.
— Jesse James Davis, 39, and Joshua Bright, 31, with conspiracy. It also charges Davis with one count of
distributing methamphetamine and Bright with two counts of distributing methamphetamine. Davis and Bright
face five to 40 years in prison. They were arrested July 6. Both are detained.
— Letitia Toya, 38, and Eugene Fales, 51, two counts of conspiracy and two counts of distributing meth. Toya
also charged with an additional count of distributing meth and one count felon in possession. Toya and Fales face
https://www.abqjournal.com/825137/104­charged­in­federal­firearm­and­drug­crackdown­in­bernalillo­county.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium…

5/7

 9/29/2016

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects   Albuquerque Journal
Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ
Document 111-1 Filed 08/27/18 Page 6 of 7

10 years to life for the conspiracy and meth trafficking. Toya also faces 10 years as a felon in possession. They
were arrested  July 6 and are detained.
— David Rayford, 24, and Chere Juarez, 27, two counts of distributing methamphetamine, and Rayford with
being a felon in possession of a firearm. They face five to 40 years on  conspiracy and meth trafficking charges.
Rayford also faces 10 years as a felon in possession. Rayford was arrested July 6, Juarez, July 26. Both are
detained.
— Devell Devoual, 34, Cedric Laneham, 38, and Dwayne Cunningham, 48,  conspiracy; Devoual with two counts
of distributing methamphetamine; and Langeham and Cunningham each with one count of distributing
methamphetamine. They face five to 40 years. Devoual and Cunningham were arrested on July 7  and Laneham 
July 6. All  are detained.
— Thomas Montoya, 39, and Manuel Boydston, 35,  conspiracy and distribution of methamphetamine. Montoya
also has  a second meth distribution charge. They face five to 40 years.They were arrested July 8, and remain in
custody.
— Eulalio Rangel, 30, felon in possession of a firearm, and London Brown, 27,  dealing in firearms without a
license and making false statements during a firearms purchase. They face 10 years. Rangel was arrested July 7, 
and was released on conditions. Brown was arrested on July 6 and is detained.
— Gaspar Leal, 46, Bernadette Aurora Tapia, 48, Brandon Candelaria, 21, and Candace Tapia, 21, conspiracy and
distributing methamphetamine. If convicted, Leal, Bernadette Aurora Tapia, Candelaria and Candace Tapia each
face five to 40 years. Candelaria and Candace Tapia were arrested on Aug. 5  and Bernadette Aurora Tapia was
arrested on Aug. 9. Candelaria is detained. Bernadette Tapia and Candace Tapia were released. Leal is a fugitive.
— Bernadette Tapia  and Mikai Cropsey, 40, conspiracy and distributing methamphetamine. Tapia and Cropsey
each face 20 years. Cropsey is a fugitive.
— Adrian D. Hammond, felon in possession of a firearm. Faces 10 years. Arrested on June 26 and is detained.
— Guajira Maya Lovato, 43, Janet Bowman, 39, Anthony Barela, 33, Juan Jose Rivas, 32, and Maria Citlaly
Beltran­Ahumada, 36, distributing meth. Conviction punishable by five to 40 years. Lovato was arrested on Aug.
10,  and Beltran­Ahumada  Aug. 9. Both in custody pending Monday hearings. Bowman, Barela and Rivas are
considered fugitives.
— Andrew Kyle, 35,  felon in possession of a firearm.Ten year potential penalty. Arrested Aug. 3. Detained.
— David Torrez, 31, and Jeneill Ayala, 24, conspiracy and distributing meth. They face  five to 40 years. Torrez
and Ayala are fugitives.
— Benjamin Marquez, 41, and Richard Lucero, 36, conspiracy and three counts of distributing methamphetamine,
and Marquez  also charged with distributing heroin. They face five to 40 years in prison on the conspiracy and
meth  trafficking charges, and Marquez also faces up to 20 years on the heroin charge. Arrested Aug. 10, both
remain in custody pending Monday hearing.
— Daniel Griego, 31, distributing cocaine. Up to 20 years. Arrested July 6, 2016, and  detained.
— Felix Ulibarri, 38, Joseph Sena, 39, Jennifer Padilla, 38, and Leo Lopez, 27,  conspiracy, and Ulibarri and
Sena with distributing meth. Five to 40 years. Arrests Aug. 10. Detention hearings Monday. Sena is in state
custody.
— Julian Brown, 21,  distributing heroin and possession of an unregistered short­barreled shotgun. He faces a up
to 20 years for heroin trafficking  and 10 years on the firearms charge. Arrested Aug. 11, in custody pending
Monday hearing.
— Ramon Ruiz, 36,  distributing cocaine base,  five to 40 years. Arrested Aug. 10,  in custody pending a
detention hearing.
— Phillip Larry Gonzales, 28,  distributing heroin. Facing up to 20 years in prison.  Aug. 10 arrest,  detention
hearing Monday.

https://www.abqjournal.com/825137/104­charged­in­federal­firearm­and­drug­crackdown­in­bernalillo­county.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium…

6/7

 9/29/2016

Firearm/drug crackdown targets 104 suspects   Albuquerque Journal
Case 1:16-cr-02362-WJ
Document 111-1 Filed 08/27/18 Page 7 of 7

— Rumaldo Olivas, 27,  istributing methamphetamine. Faces five to 40 years Arrested on Aug. 10. Detention
hearing Monday.
— Guajira Maya Lovato, and Desiree Otero, 23,  conspiracy and distributing heroin. Arrested on Aug. 10, they
face up to 20 years. They are in custody pending a Monday hearing.
— Guajira  Lovato, Daniel Loya, 30, and Richard Cortez, 36, conspiracy and distributing meth. Up to 20 years.
Lovato and Cortez were arrested on Aug. 10, detention hearings Monday. Loya is a fugitive.
— Waldo Nahle, 34, Abel Perea, 28, and Richard Lucero, 36, conspiracy and distributing methamphetamine;
Nahle with being a felon in possession of a firearm; Nahle and Perea with a second conspiracy charge and
distributing methamphetamine; and Perea with distributing methamphetamine. Perea faces 20 years on  conspiracy
and meth trafficking charges; Nahle faces 10 years for  a felon in possession; and Nahle and Perea each face five
to 40 years on their conspiracy and methamphetamine trafficking charges. Nahle, Perea and Lucero were arrested 
Aug. 10,  and have Monday detention hearings.
— Richard Porras, 29, Jonathan Griego, 26, and Jesus Ramirez, 25, firearms and drug trafficking offenses. The
indictment charges Porras with conspiracy, four counts of distributing methamphetamine, and being a felon in
possession of a firearm and ammunition; Griego with conspiracy and distributing meth; and  Ramirez with
possession of meth  and heroin with intent to distribute, using a firearm in  a drug trafficking crime and being a
felon in possession of a firearm.  Porras, Griego and Ramirez each face  five to 40 years for conspiracy and meth
trafficking; Porras and Ramirez each face 10 years for unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition; and
Ramirez faces 20 years in prison for  heroin trafficking.  Ramirez also faces five years consecutive to any prison
sentence imposed on the other charges. Arrested on Aug. 10, they have detention hearings on Monday.
— Johnny Flores, 22, and Josue Duarte, 30,  conspiracy and two counts of distributing methamphetamine. They
face  five to 40 years. They were arrested Aug. 11,  and have detention hearings Monday.
— Daniel Carmona, 29, Gaspar Leal, 46, and Luis Arreola­Palma, 22, conspiracy. Carmona also has two counts
of distributing meth and using a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. They each face five to 40
years. Carmona also faces five years consecutive to any other sentence. Carmona was arrested on Aug. 3, is
detained. Leal and Arreola­Palma are in state custody and will be transferred to federal custody.
— A criminal complaint charges Tommy Hohmann with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
He faces 10 years. He was arrested on Aug. 10 and has a detention hearing Monday.

https://www.abqjournal.com/825137/104­charged­in­federal­firearm­and­drug­crackdown­in­bernalillo­county.html?utm_source=abqjournal.com&utm_medium…

7/7