December 10, 2022

ACN Center

Area Control Network

Texas man sentenced for smuggling $1.1M of crystal meth

14 min read

LAREDO, Texas – A 20-year-old Dallas resident has been sent to federal prison for illegally importing approximately 25.16 kilograms of meth, announced U.S. Attorney Jennifer B. Lowery.

Luke Law pleaded guilty Dec. 1, 2021.

Today, U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo sentenced him to serve a total of 60 months in federal prison to be immediately followed by three years of supervised release. As a condition of his supervised release, Judge Marmolejo ordered the defendant must speak to high schools at least three times a year about avoiding drugs and avoiding the choices he made.

On June 6, 2021, Law attempted to cross into the United States after vacationing in Monterrey, Mexico. Authorities referred his vehicle to the secondary inspection area where a K-9 alerted to the presence of narcotics. An X-ray scan revealed anomalies behind the vehicle’s gas tank. Upon further investigation, law enforcement discovered a total of 29 bundles of meth wrapped in clear tape weighing approximately 25.16 kilograms.

The drugs have an estimated street value of approximately $1.1 million.

Law has been and will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons Facility to be determined in the near future.

Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection conducted the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Makens prosecuted the case.

More from: April 14, 2022

  • Iranian Nationals Charged with Conspiring to Evade U.S. Sanctions on Iran by Disguising $300 Million in Transactions Over Two Decades
    In Crime News
    A federal criminal complaint unsealed today charges 10 Iranian nationals with running a nearly 20-year-long scheme to evade U.S. sanctions on the Government of Iran by disguising more than $300 million worth of transactions – including the purchase of two $25 million oil tankers – on Iran’s behalf through front companies in the San Fernando Valley, Canada, Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates.

    [Read More…]

  • Priority Open Recommendations: Office of Science and Technology Policy
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found As of June 2021, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) had 11 open recommendations. We are identifying three recommendations from our prior work as priorities for implementation by OSTP. These three recommendations relate to strengthening interagency collaboration on science and technology issues. As the challenges of the 21st century grow, it is increasingly important for executive agencies to consider how the federal government can maximize performance and results through improved collaboration. Our prior work has shown that many issues, including those in science and technology, cut across multiple agencies. In this regard, OSTP plays a critical role in bringing agencies together under the committees and subcommittees of the National Science and Technology Council. This mechanism provides a valuable opportunity for agencies to coordinate on implementing an administration’s research and development priorities and to address cross-cutting science and technology issues, such as scientific integrity, public access to federally funded research results, reliability of research results, supply chains for critical materials, and others. Strengthening interagency coordination in these areas could help amplify the synergistic effects of related research conducted by different agencies, avoid unnecessary overlapping or duplicative research and development efforts, and share lessons learned or coordinate actions to address science and technology issues. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. This is the first year that we are providing a priority recommendation letter to OSTP. For more information, contact John Neumann at (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • Former Employee At Los Alamos National Laboratory Sentenced To Probation For Making False Statements About Being Employed By China
    In Crime News
    Turab Lookman, 68, of Santa Fe, New Mexico, was sentenced on Sept. 11 to five years of probation and a $75,000 fine for providing a false statement to the Department of Energy.  Lookman is not allowed to leave New Mexico for the term of his probation.

    [Read More…]

  • HHS Leverages Public Feedback to Advance Landscape Analysis on Emerging Technologies for Aging, Underserved Populations
    In Human Health, Resources and Services
    February 3, 2021 By: [Read More…]
  • U.S. Special Envoy for Yemen Lenderking’s Travel to the Middle East
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Federal Research Grants: OMB Should Take Steps to Establish the Research Policy Board
    In U.S GAO News
    As of January 2021, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had not established the Research Policy Board as required by the 21st Century Cures Act. The act requires OMB to establish the Board within 1 year of the December 13, 2016 enactment of the act. The Board is to provide information on the effects of regulations related to federal research requirements. OMB stated that it had not established the Board because of issues with the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) and other federal agencies’ full participation in the Board’s potential activities to develop or implement a modified approach to indirect cost policies. According to OMB, “the Board would necessarily delve into issues related to compliance burden and indirect cost reimbursement to entities that receive federal funding for research.” Specifically, OMB pointed to a statutory provision appearing in annual appropriations bills that it believes prohibits HHS and other agencies from taking action on issues that could implicate certain indirect cost provisions. According to OMB, this provision could, if continued in future bills, “complicate or even possibly prohibit HHS from participating in major elements of the Board’s process.” OMB stated that, without representation of a major research agency such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is part of HHS, “OMB would not be equipped to meet the statutory goals of the Board.” However, HHS stated in October 2020 that the indirect cost provision would not prohibit NIH’s participation on the Board and that the department was not aware of any other appropriations law provision that would prohibit such participation. GAO has no basis to disagree with HHS’s position. The 21st Century Cures Act does not specifically direct the Board to examine issues related to indirect costs, and we identified other issues that may fall within the scope of the Board’s activities. For example, the act specifies five activities that the Board may conduct, including creating a forum for the discussion of research policy or regulatory gaps, and identifying regulatory process improvements and policy changes. The Board could consider examining these or other issues related to streamlining and harmonizing regulations and reducing administrative burden in federally funded research in accordance with the 21st Century Cures Act. By not having established the Board, OMB is missing opportunities for the Board to provide information on the effects of regulations related to requirements for federally funded research, and to make recommendations to harmonize and streamline such requirements. Further, OMB has limited time to establish the Board and the Board may have insufficient time to complete its work before the Board is set to terminate on September 30, 2021. The 21st Century Cures Act requires OMB to establish an advisory committee, to be known as the Research Policy Board, that is responsible for making recommendations on modifying and harmonizing regulation of federally funded research to reduce administrative burden. The Board is to consist of both federal and non-federal members and include not more than 10 members from federal agencies, including officials from OMB, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), HHS, the National Science Foundation, and other departments and agencies that support or regulate scientific research, as determined by the OMB Director. The 21st Century Cures Act includes a provision for GAO to conduct an independent evaluation of the Board’s activities. This report examines the steps OMB has taken to establish the Board as required by the 21st Century Cures Act. GAO reviewed written responses and other information from OMB, HHS, and OSTP; the 21st Century Cures Act and other laws related to the Board and its establishment; relevant reports on issues related to administrative burden; and related documents such as memoranda and agency guidance. GAO submitted a draft report containing the results of its evaluation to Congress on December 10, 2020. Congress should consider extending the period of authorization for the Research Policy Board, giving OMB additional time to establish the Research Policy Board and complete its statutory mission under the 21st Century Cures Act. GAO recommends that OMB establish the Research Policy Board as mandated by the 21st Century Cures Act and report to Congress on the Board’s activities. OMB did not agree or disagree with this recommendation. We maintain that the evidence in this report shows the need for our recommendation. For more information, contact John Neumann at (202) 512-6888 or neumannj@gao.gov.

    [Read More…]

  • The Passing of Zhang Qing, Wife of Human Rights Defender Guo Feixiong
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks to Mission Germany Staff
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Statement on DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility Report on Jeffrey Epstein 2006-2008 Investigation
    In Crime News
    The executive summary of a report by the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was released today to affected victims.  The summary, which is available on the Justice Department website, provides the essential details about the findings of OPR’s investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s resolution of its 2006–2008 federal criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and its interactions with victims during the investigation. 

    [Read More…]

  • COVID-19 Travel Advisory Updates
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Sanctions Against Businesses Linked to Mexican Cartels
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Hear Audio From NASA’s Perseverance As It Travels Through Deep Space
    The first to be rigged [Read More…]
  • Sexual Assault: DOD and Coast Guard Should Ensure Laws Are Implemented to Improve Oversight of Key Prevention and Response Efforts
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Congress passed 249 statutory requirements directing the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Coast Guard to address prevention of and response to sexual assault incidents, and most remain in force. The statutory requirements covered four broad categories: Victim Assistance and Advocacy (37 percent); Management and Oversight (33 percent); Military Justice and Investigations (21 percent); and Prevention Efforts (9 percent). DOD fulfilled most of these statutory requirements, such as establishing comprehensive policies to prevent and respond to sexual assault as well as training for sexual assault forensic and nurse examiners. However, DOD partially implemented 24 requirements and did not implement 5 requirements. (See figure.) For example, DOD did not report certain information in annual reports; establish and implement an evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of the outcomes of its programs and activities related to sexual assault prevention and response; or ensure the tracking of commander compliance for conducting organizational climate assessments. Implementation Status of Statutory Requirements That the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard Were Directed to Implement, as of February 2022 Until DOD fully implements all of these statutory requirements, such as those related to program evaluations, Congress and DOD may continue to lack necessary data about the effectiveness of programs and activities, which can affect oversight. Additionally, DOD may not ensure compliance with the laws and may not fully implement efforts to support victims and prevent sexual assaults. The Coast Guard implemented most statutory requirements to prevent and respond to sexual assault. However, the Coast Guard partially implemented five statutory requirements and did not implement one. For example, the Coast Guard established policies for victims who asked to be transferred, but did not meet statutory requirements for timelines to make decisions on whether to transfer victims. In general, without oversight structures that include mechanisms to track and document implementation of statutory requirements, DOD and the Coast Guard may be unable to ensure they are fully meeting their responsibilities to help prevent and respond to sexual assault. Why GAO Did This Study Sexual assault is a heinous crime that can have lasting, harmful effects on victims, and contradicts the core values that DOD and the Coast Guard expect servicemembers to follow. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 includes a provision for GAO to review the armed forces’ implementation of statutory requirements related to sexual assault prevention and response from fiscal years 2004 through 2019. This report identifies and describes the status of each statutory requirement for sexual assault prevention and response contained in the NDAAs. It also evaluates the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard implemented the statutory requirements, and assessed their effectiveness when directed by statute. GAO reviewed statutory requirements, and assessed information from DOD and the Coast Guard on implementation and effectiveness.

    [Read More…]

  • North Carolina Risk Consultant Pleads Guilty to Tax Fraud and Illegally Possessing a Firearm
    In Crime News
    A Chapel Hill, N.C., businessman pleaded guilty today to filing a false tax return and being a felon in possession of a firearm, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Matthew G.T. Martin for the Middle District of North Carolina.

    [Read More…]

  • Justice Department Settles With Texas Based Furniture and Appliances Chain for Charging Servicemembers Excess Interest
    In Crime News
    The Justice Department reached an agreement today with Conn Credit I, LP, Conn Appliances, Inc., and Conn’s, Inc. (“Conn’s”), to resolve allegations that they violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”) by charging at least 184 servicemembers excess interest on their purchases. 

    [Read More…]

  • Military Operations: The Department of Defense’s Use of Solatia and Condolence Payments in Iraq and Afghanistan
    In U.S GAO News
    There are a number of ways that the U.S. government provides assistance to Iraqi or Afghan civilians who are killed, injured, or suffer property damage as a result of U.S. and coalition forces’ actions. For instance, the U.S. Agency for International Development funds projects to assist Iraqi and Afghan civilians and communities directly impacted by actions of U.S. or coalition forces. Also, the Department of State administers a program that makes payments, in accordance with local custom, to Iraqi civilians who are harmed in incidents involving U.S. protective security details. In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) administers a program that provides compensation under the Foreign Claims Act to inhabitants of foreign countries for death, injury, or property damage caused by noncombat activities of U.S. military personnel overseas. Further, DOD provides monetary assistance in the form of solatia and condolence payments to Iraqi and Afghan nationals who are killed, injured, or incur property damage as a result of U.S. or coalition forces’ actions during combat. From fiscal years 2003 to 2006, DOD has reported about $1.9 million in solatia payments and more than $29 million in condolence payments to Iraqi and Afghan civilians who are killed, injured, or incur property damage as a result of U.S. or coalition forces’ actions during combat. These payments are expressions of sympathy or remorse based on local culture and customs, but not an admission of legal liability or fault. Commanders make condolence payments using funds provided by Congress for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP), whereas solatia payments are funded from unit operations and maintenance accounts. Pub. L. No. 108-106 (2003) requires DOD to provide quarterly reports on the source, allocation, and use of CERP funds. To administer the CERP, DOD has established 19 project categories for the use of funds, including categories for condolence payments and battle damage payments. At Congress’s request, we reviewed DOD’s solatia and condolence payment programs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, we examined the following questions: (1) To what extent has DOD established guidance for making and documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan? (2) How are commanders making and documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan and what factors do commanders consider when determining whether to make payments or payment amounts? (3) To what extent does DOD collect and analyze solatia and condolence payment data? We also are providing information on the other aforementioned programs established by the U.S. government to provide assistance to Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have been affected by U.S. or coalition forces’ actions. These programs include (1) DOD’s Foreign Claims Act, (2) the Department of State’s Claims and Condolence Payment Program, and (3) the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund and the Afghan Civilian Assistance Program.We found that DOD has established guidance for making and documenting solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that guidance has changed over time primarily in Iraq in terms of condolence payment amounts, approval levels, and payment eligibility. Within parameters established by guidance, commanders exercise broad discretion for determining whether a payment should be made and the appropriate payment amount. While guidance does not require commanders to make payments, commanders may do so if they choose. When determining whether to make payments and payment amounts, commanders told us they consider the severity of injury, type of damage, and property values based on the local economy as well as any other applicable cultural considerations. According to unit officials with whom we spoke, units generally follow a similar process for making solatia and condolence payments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials told us that they generally make payments to civilians at Civil Military Operations Centers–ad hoc organizations established by military commanders to assist in the coordination of civilian-related activities–or during personal visits. DOD requires units to collect various types of detailed information related to condolence payments and, based on this information, reports certain summary level data to Congress. However, because its current guidance does not clearly distinguish between the types of payments to be reported under certain CERP categories, reporting entities are interpreting the guidance differently, and therefore inconsistent reporting has occurred. When a condolence payment is made, units record, among other data, information on the unit that made the payment, number of civilians killed or injured or whose property was damaged, location of the incident, and dollar value of the payment. Each payment also is assigned a document reference number for tracking purposes. In reporting to Congress on the use of CERP funds, DOD provides summary data on obligations, commitments, and disbursements for each of the 19 project categories, and by major subordinate command5 in Iraq or task force in Afghanistan. The project categories include (1) condolence payments to individual civilians for death, injury, or property damage and (2) repair of damage that results from U.S., coalition, or supporting military operations that is not compensable under the Foreign Claims Act, known as battle damage payments. Within the condolence payment category, DOD reports total dollar amounts and does not distinguish between payments made for death, injury, or personal property damage. Because DOD guidance does not clearly define when payments for property damage should be recorded as condolence payments or as payments for battle damage, some units are recording property damage as condolence payments while others record property damage as battle damage payments. Additionally, neither DOD nor the Army–which is the executive agent for CERP–can easily determine that property damage is categorized appropriately because guidance does not require units to report certain detailed information, such as document reference numbers, which would facilitate verification.

    [Read More…]

  • Houston man charged in Memorial Drive thefts
    In Justice News
    A 26-year old Houston [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Before Departing at Joint Base Andrews
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Republic of the Congo Travel Advisory
    Reconsider travel to the [Read More…]
  • Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers Delivers Remarks on the National Security Cyber Investigation into North Korean Operatives
    In Crime News
    Today, the Justice Department is announcing charges following a significant national security cyber investigation first disclosed publicly more than two years ago.

    [Read More…]

Source: Network News
Area Control Network

Copyright © 2022 ACN
All Rights Reserved © ACN 2020

ACN Privacy Policies
ACN TOS
Area Control Network (ACN)
Area Control Network
Area Control Network Center