California inmate gets 5 years for drone drug delivery scheme
A man already serving time in a California prison was sentenced to five more years for conspiring to obtain and distribute drugs using drone deliveries. Photo by Activedia/Pixabay
June 4 (UPI) -- A Pleasant Valley State Prison inmate in California will spend five more years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute illicit drugs via drone deliveries in 2021.
Michael Ray Acosta, from May 23 to Aug. 27, 2021, coordinated several drone deliveries of methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana from inside the state prison, Acting U.S. Attorney Michele Beckwith announced on Tuesday.
Acosta used a contraband cellphone to schedule the drug deliveries that four co-conspirators delivered by flying drones over the prison and dropped packages that Acosta and others would recover, Beckwith said.
The packages included drugs, cellphones, cellphone accessories and other items during what federal investigators dubbed "Operation Night Drop."
Accomplice Jose Oropeza is scheduled for sentencing on charges arising from the drone drug deliveries on July 28.
Alleged accomplice David Ramirez Jr. is expected to plead guilty on July 29, and Joshua Gonzalez and Rosendo Ramirez have court appearances scheduled on June 11.
The four are accused of flying the drones that made the drug deliveries.
Investigators with the FBI, Federal Aviation Administration, Drug Enforcement Agency and the California Department of Corrections investigated the case.
The prison is located in Central California's Fresno County and about 55 miles southwest of Fresno.
A prison record says Acosta is 50, but the Department of Justice's press release indicates he is 48.
Neither the DOJ nor the prison record says why Acosta already was imprisoned or for how long.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
United States seizes $7.44 million in North Korean crypto scam
June 5 (UPI) -- The Justice Department has seized more than $7.74 million dollars related to an illegal employment and cryptocurrency scheme operated by North Korea, officials announced Thursday. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District court in Washington, alleges that IT workers were illegally hired and collected cryptocurrency for the North Korean government as a way to avoid sanctions imposed by the United States. "This forfeiture action highlights, once again, the North Korean government's exploitation of the cryptocurrency ecosystem to fund its illicit priorities," Matthew R. Galeoti, director of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in a release. "The department will use every legal tool at its disposal to safeguard the cryptocurrency ecosystems and deny North Korea all its ill-gotten gains in violation of U.S. sanctions." The Justice Department said North Korean workers used false identities to obtain employment with U.S.-based companies, often remotely, as a way to avoid sanctions and illegally obtained cryptocurrency, which they then sent back to North Korea. "Those IT workers have generated revenue for North Korea via their jobs at, among other places, blockchain development companies," the Justice Department release continued. To send the cryptocurrency to North Korea, the IT workers allegedly laundered it by setting up accounts with fictitious names, sending funds in small amounts, converting funds or moving them to other blockchains or converting them to other forms of currency. They also allegedly commingled their funds with other money to hide their origins. Earlier this year, the FBI issued guidelines on how to recognize extortion and theft of sensitive company data, and offered rules on how to address it.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
UPI
15 hours ago
- UPI
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
