Central Participant in Human Smuggling Ring Sentenced to Prison

A Guatemalan national who admitted playing a central role in a large-scale human smuggling organization that brought thousands of illegal aliens from Central America to Southern California, often holding them against their will in so-called drop houses, has been sentenced to eight years in federal prison.

Fredy Oswaldo Gamez Reyes, 44, was sentenced Wednesday, February 6, 2013, by Judge S. James Otero, who pointed to the smuggling organization's tactics, including the use of weapons and guard dogs to intimidate the illegal aliens, as the basis for the 96-month prison term.

Gamez pleaded guilty in May 2012 to six criminal counts of harboring and concealing illegal aliens for financial gain, following a probe by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). According to court documents, Gamez acknowledged he served as a supervisor for a criminal organization that smuggled more than 6,000 illegal aliens into Southern California during a three-year period, beginning in 2008, generating an estimated $10 million in income.

HSI's probe revealed Gamez held a number of jobs within the organization, including locating and renting drop houses, overseeing the operation of those locations, and collecting smuggling fees from the illegal aliens' relatives in exchange for the illegal aliens' release. HSI's investigation also uncovered numerous incidents perpetrated by members of the organization involving beatings, sexual assaults and hostage taking.

"As this sentence makes clear, those who exploit people in this brutal and despicable way will themselves face serious consequences," said Claude Arnold, special agent in charge for HSI Los Angeles. "Alien smugglers view their clients as nothing more than a payday and they have no qualms about using threats and violence to collect their smuggling fees."

The smuggling organization originally came to authorities' attention in July 2009 after HSI special agents and Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies responded to a drop house in Compton where 20 individuals were reportedly being held against their will. Two of the captive aliens wrote a plea for help on a napkin and threw it out the window, where it was found by neighborhood children.

Evidence uncovered during the ensuing the investigation showed Gamez was responsible for overseeing the operation of the Compton location, along with three other human smuggling drop houses in Baldwin Park, Lynwood and Hesperia.

HSI's investigation into this smuggling organization is ongoing. To date, 11 other individuals involved in the ring have been arrested and/or convicted of federal charges, resulting in sentences of 33 to 51 months. 

Former ICE Director Sentenced to 20 Months for Fraud

The former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Office of Intelligence was sentenced July 13, 2012, to 20 months in prison for defrauding the U.S. government.

James M. Woosley, 48, defrauded the government of more than $180,000 in a scheme involving fraudulent travel vouchers, and time and attendance claims.

The sentence was announced by U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr., District of Columbia; Charles K. Edwards, acting inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); James W. McJunkin, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office, and Timothy Moynihan, director of ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility.

Woosley, formerly of Tucson, Ariz., pleaded guilty in May 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a charge of conversion of government money. He was sentenced by the Honorable Amy Berman Jackson. Upon completion of his prison term, Woosley will be placed on three years of supervised release. In addition, as part of his plea agreement, he agreed to forfeiture and restitution of the money that he wrongfully obtained.

Four others have pled guilty in the case. Ahmed Adil Abdallat, 64, a former ICE supervisory intelligence research specialist, pleaded guilty in October 2011; William J. Korn, 53, a former ICE intelligence research specialist, pleaded guilty in December 2011; Stephen E.
Henderson, 62, a former contractor who did work for ICE, pleaded guilty in January 2012, and Lateisha M. Rollerson, 38, a former assistant to Woosley, pleaded guilty in March 2012.
Abdallat pleaded guilty in the Western District of Texas, and the others pleaded guilty in the District of Columbia.

Abdallat was sentenced to a year and a day in prison and ordered to pay $116,392 in restitution. Henderson has been sentenced to three months in prison and must forfeit $54,387, representing his share of the proceeds of the crime. Rollerson was sentenced to 10 months in prison and ordered to pay $295,866 in restitution. Korn is awaiting sentencing.

All told, the actions of the various defendants cost ICE more than $500,000.

"Today's sentence reflects the outstanding law enforcement cooperation in a case that unmasked the illicit acts of a senior ICE official," said Director Moynihan on July 13, 2012. "Bottom line: James Woosley violated the public trust in pursuit of his own greed. While his actions are atypical of the dedication and integrity demonstrated by the vast majority of ICE employees, this sentence should serve as a stark reminder about the serious consequences facing those who would exploit their positions for personal financial gain. The ICE Office of Professional Responsibility will continue to investigate those individuals aggressively and seek their prosecution to the fullest extent of the law."

"James Woosley took advantage of the trust he was given by the United States government to carry out a scheme that cost American taxpayers more than a half-million dollars," said U.S. Attorney Machen. "He personally obtained more than $188,000 while also bringing others into the fraud. Now he and four others have been convicted of their crimes, and he will be spending time in prison for this betrayal of his office."

"For years, Mr. Woosley participated in a scheme to defraud the government for his own personal gain," said Assistant Director in Charge McJunkin. "Today, he is being held accountable for his actions. This sentencing demonstrates that those who engage in government corruption, as well as those who allow it to happen, will be brought to justice."

According to the government's evidence, with which Woosley agreed, from in or about May 2008 until in or about January 2011, Woosley participated in the fraudulent activity involving travel vouchers, and time and attendance claims. In addition, from June 2008 until in or about February 2011, Woosley was aware of or willfully overlooked fraudulent activity of ICE or contract employees under his supervision.

The other employees included Rollerson, who he met in or about 2007, while he was deputy director of ICE's Office of Intelligence. Woosley and Rollerson developed a close, personal relationship. In or about May 2008, Rollerson was hired as an intelligence reports writer for a company that did contract work for ICE. Later that year, she was hired by ICE as an intelligence research specialist. This placed her first in the chain of command under Woosley, and she later became Woosley's personal assistant. Rollerson's official duty station was in Washington, and she lived in Virginia, often with Woosley. Rollerson helped Woosley and the other participants with the paperwork to support the fraudulent payments they later received. Woosley admitted obtaining money in various ways:

·                             Between in or about May 2008 and January 2011, Woosley submitted or caused to be submitted approximately 13 fraudulent travel vouchers to ICE, at a cost of $50,637. As Woosley's assistant, Rollerson created all but one of the travel vouchers, as well as fraudulent documents to support the claimed expenses. She often accompanied him on the trips.

·                             Between in or about November 2009 and January 2011, Woosley submitted or caused to be submitted time and attendance claims for his pay for work he was supposed to be doing while he was on travel. Because he was not actually on travel, or working, he was not entitled to the payments of approximately $27,230.

·                             Starting in 2008, Woosley took a share of the fraudulent proceeds obtained by others in a scheme involving travel vouchers. For example, Henderson, an ICE contractor who was detailed on temporary duty to Washington, kicked back $5,000 to Woosley that was used to purchase a boat. Henderson also lived with Woosley and used some fraudulent proceeds to pay rent. Abdallat wrote checks to Rollerson and others, for the benefit of Woosley and Rollerson, totaling about $58,550. Korn kicked back about $30,648 to the benefit of Woosley and Rollerson. Finally, an unnamed contract employee gave $15,940 in fraudulent travel voucher funds to Woosley, which Woosley used for a real estate investment.

This case was investigated by ICE's OPR, DHS' Office of Inspector General and FBI's Washington Field Office.

In announcing today's sentence, U.S. Attorney Machen, Acting Inspector General Edwards, Assistant Director McJunkin, and Assistant Director Moynihan praised the investigative agents from the respective agencies for their hard work in this matter. They also acknowledged the efforts of Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Butler and Allison Barlotta, who handled this prosecution, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Scruggs, who handled the asset forfeiture.

Marriage in Prison in Connecticut - Inmate Marriage and Civil Unions

 State of Connecticut Department of Correction 

ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE


Directive Number 10.9 Effective Date 5/1/2006


1. Policy.

The Department of Correction shall permit an inmate to marry or enter into a civil union when all statutory prerequisites and Department conditions for marriage or entry into a civil union have been satisfied.

2. Authority and Reference.

A. Turner v Safely, 492 U.S. 78 (1987).
B. Connecticut General Statutes, Sections 4-8, 7-45, 17b-137a(a)(b), 18-81, 45a-676(c), 46b-20 through 46b-25, 46b-28 through 46b-30, 46b-33, 46b-38aa through 46b-38oo, 46b-150d and 51-164n(b).
C. American Correctional Association, Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, Fourth Edition, January 2003, Standard 4-4428.
D. Administrative Directives 4.1, Offender Records; 6.14, Security Risk Groups; 9.2, Offender Classification and 9.8, Furloughs.

3. Definitions.

A. Applicant. An individual who applies for a marriage/civil union license.
B. Civil Union. The union of a same-sex couple.
C. Marriage. The union of one man and one woman.
D. Unit Administrator. The administrative head of a correctional facility or the Director of Parole and Community Services.

4. Application for Permission to Marry/Enter into a Civil Union.

An inmate desiring to get married or enter into a civil union shall submit a written request to the Unit Administrator utilizing form CN 100901, Inmate Marriage/Civil Union Request. Permission to marry/enter into a civil union from the Unit Administrator may be granted once all conditions of this Directive have been satisfied. The inmate’s request to marry/enter into a civil union shall be submitted to the appropriate Unit Administrator at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the proposed marriage/civil union date. The proposed spouse/civil union partner shall indicate, in writing, to the Unit Administrator, an intention to marry/enter into a civil union with the inmate. The request shall include the name and full address of the proposed spouse/civil union partner.

5. Inmate Transfer. 

If an inmate who has commenced the marriage/civil union process in one facility is transferred to another facility or community placement, the inmate shall not be required to initiate the process again. The request to marry/enter into a civil union shall be forwarded accordingly. A Connecticut inmate incarcerated in another state shall follow the marriage/civil union procedures of the incarcerating jurisdiction.  However, an inmate who returns to Connecticut from another state shall be required to initiate a new request, following the procedures outlined in this Directive.

6. Obligation of the Parties. 

The inmate and the proposed spouse/ civil union partner shall be responsible for fulfilling the various requirements associated with an inmate marriage/civil union and for providing any information deemed necessary by the Unit Administrator in considering the application for permission to marry/enter into a civil union.

There shall be no obligation on the part of the Department to authenticate or verify the fact that the inmate’s application has satisfied applicable statutory requirements. The obligation to ensure such compliance remains with the applicants for permission to marry/enter into a civil union.

7. Decision Factors for Granting Permission to Marry/Enter into a Civil Union. 

The Unit Administrator shall consider all relevant factors including rehabilitation, but is not limited to, the following when rendering a decision to allow the inmate to marry/enter into a civil union:
A. An inmate may not marry/enter into a civil union with another inmate. One of the applicants shall not be an inmate. Marriage/entry into a civil union between an inmate and a Department employee or contractual employee shall be prohibited.
B. Neither party is the subject of a detainer or an undisposed criminal charge, the legal proceeding of which may be impacted by the marriage/civil union (e.g., an inmate requests to marry/enter into a civil union with, the victim of the crime or a potential witness, etc.).
C. A pretrial inmate may request permission to marry in accordance with the provisions of this Directive. Staff shall contact the appropriate court, States Attorney, and in the case of an alien, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, to advise of the marriage/civil union request of the pretrial inmate and to request their comments in accordance with this Directive.
D. In the case of a federal inmate, Department staff shall make reasonable efforts to contact the appropriate office of the United States Attorney and Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding the proposed marriage/civil union and shall obtain approval from the appropriate authority. There shall be no requirement that an inmate must be a citizen of the United States to request marriage/entry into a civil union.
E. In the case of an Interstate Compact inmate, Department staff shall contact the sending jurisdiction to advise of the marriage/civil union request and to request their comments in accordance with this Directive.
F. The inmate applicant shall be incarcerated for a minimum of one year and be discipline free for one year prior to the application before being approved for marriage/entry into acivil union. Inmates who are classified as security risk group members under the provisions of Administrative Directive 6.14, Security Risk Groups and 9.2, Offender Classification shall not be approved for marriage/entry into a civil union.
G. No inmate may be allowed to marry/enter into a civil union without the approval of the Unit Administrator depending upon the inmate’s classification or placement status. In considering such approval, the Unit Administrator shall determine if the proposed marriage/civil union poses any threat to the safety and security of the facility, staff, public or other inmates. In reviewing this requirement the Unit Administrator shall consider, but is not limited to, the following:

1. The inmate applicant’s conviction record including pre-sentence investigation and police reports.
2. The inmate applicant’s facility record.
3. Pending charges against the applicant(s).
4. The physical or mental condition of the applicant(s).
5. If the proposed spouse/civil union partner has any employment relationship with the Department.

8. Payment of Expenses. 

The parties to the marriage/civil union shall bear all costs and expenses. The proposed spouse/civil union partner shall be responsible for making the arrangements for the registrar of the town to visit the inmate applicant so as to comply with the applicable sections of the Connecticut General Statutes.

9. Request for Criminal History. 

The proposed spouse/civil union partner shall be provided, upon written request to the Unit Administrator, full disclosure of the inmate’s correctional history (i.e., RT-60, RT-67 and RT-80). The Unit Administrator shall designate the appropriate staff member to provide the proposed spouse/civil union partner with the requested information. Requests for an inmate’s criminal history shall be referred to the Department of Public Safety.


10. Staff Assistance. 

The inmate and proposed spouse/civil union partner shall be solely responsible for all arrangements, documentation and licensing in the marriage/civil union process. The marriage/civil union process is a civil proceeding. The Unit Administrator shall designate a staff member to schedule the marriage/civil union after the couple has fulfilled all requirements and permission has been granted for the marriage/civil union to take place.

11. Selection of Officiating Agent. 

The inmate shall be responsible to arrange for a legally authorized officiating agent (i.e., member of the clergy, justice of the peace, judge, family support magistrate or state referee) to perform the ceremony. The officiating agent shall submit a copy of his/her credentials to the Unit Administrator, prior the ceremony date. Department employees and contractual employees shall not serve as officiating agents nor be allowed to participate in an inmate marriage/civil union ceremony.

12. Marriage/Civil Union Ceremony. 

To preserve security and order, the Unit Administrator may impose conditions, including but not limited to scheduling, upon the circumstances of any marriage/civil union ceremony held within a correctional facility. Attendees at a marriage/civil union ceremony may be limited and subject to the approval of the Unit Administrator. All persons participating in the ceremony and guests shall be subject to security clearance as determined by the Unit Administrator.

13. Documentation. 

The marriage/civil union shall be documented in the inmate's master file. Any name changes shall be in accordance with Administrative Directive 4.1, Offender Records.

14. Forms and Attachments. 

The following form is applicable to this Administrative Directive and shall be utilized for the intended function:

A. CN 100901, Inmate Marriage/Civil Union Request.

15. Exceptions.

Any exceptions to the procedures in this Administrative Directive shall require prior written approval from the Commissioner.