USA v. Torres - Erik Raul Torres
Criminal Court Docket Sheet

Middle District of Alabama

3:2016-cr-00025 (almd)

FELONY INFORMATION as to Erik Raul Torres (1) count(s) 1, 2. Forfeiture Allegations-STRICKEN PER ORDER of 12/20/2016. Modified on 12/20/2016 to add text.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA RECEIVED EASTERN DIVISION i)lb FEB 23 p l 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)) V.) CR. NO) ERIK RAUL TORRES) 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)) 18 U.S.C. §2])) INFORMATION The United States Attorney charges: COUNT 1 Beginning from an unknown date, and continuing through in or about September 2013, the exact dates being unknown to the United States Attorney, in Lee County, within the Middle District of Alabama, and elsewhere, the defendant, ERIK RAUL TORRES, did knowingly and intentionally conspire, combine, and agree with others, both known and unknown to the United States Attorney, including Marc Oliver Adam and Francisco Huidor-Figueroa to distribute and dispense and cause to distributed and dispensed mixtures and substances containing detectable amounts of oxycodone, a schedule It controlled substance, by issuing and causing prescriptions for oxycodone to be issued to medical patients, outside the usual course of professional medical practice and for no legitimate medical purpose, through the operation of a "pill mill," that is a medical clinic created to dispense controlled substances inappropriately, unlawfully, and for non-medical reasons, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1). All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. COUNT 2 Beginning from an unknown date, and continuing through in or about September 2013, the exact dates being unknown to the United States Attorney, in Lee County, within the Middle District of Alabama, and elsewhere, the defendant, ERIK RAUL TORRES, did knowingly and intentionally conspire, combine, and agree with others, both known and unknown to the United States Attorney, including Marc Oliver Adam and Francisco Huidor-Figueroa to commit offenses against the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956, to wit: to knowingly conduct financial transactions affecting interstate and foreign commerce, which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, to wit, the distribution and dispensing of a schedule 11 controlled substance as charged in count 1 of this information, outside the usual course of professional medical practice and for no legitimate medical purpose, with the intent to promote the carrying on of the specified unlawful activity, and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transactions knew that the property involved in the financial transactions represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). MANNER AND MEANS The manner and means used to accomplish the objectives of the conspiracy included, among others, the following: the making of payments from a bank account controlled by the defendant and his co-conspirator, Adam, to wit, the Branch Banking and Trust Company account in the name of EMED Medical Management Corporation. number XXXXX6874, payable to Co-conspirator t-Iuidor-Figueroa, with the intent to promote the specified unlawful activity. OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy, the co-conspirators, including the defendant, took or caused to be took the following overt acts, specifically, issuing checks payable to Huidor-Figueroa using funds that were the proceeds of the specified unlawful activity, to wit, the distribution and dispensing of a schedule TI controlled substance as charged in count I of this information, outside the usual course of professional medical practice and for no legitimate medical purpose, for the purposes of promoting the specified unlawful activity by incentivizing Huidor-Figueroa to continue to see patients and prescribe the patients schedule 11 controlled substances despite the patients' having no medical need for the schedule 11 controlled substances prescribed, with all defendants knowing that the funds to be used to pay the checks represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity: Date of Check Check Number Amount Co-conspirator October 26, 2012 1004 $7,330.00 Erik Raul Torres December 21, 2012 1040 $6,000.00 Erik Raul Torres March 1, 2013 1062 $8,218.00 Marc Oliver Adam All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). FORFEITURE ALLEGATION A. The allegations contained in counts I and 2 of this information are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeiture pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 982. B. Upon conviction of the offenses in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, as set forth in count I of this information and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (h), as set forth in count 2 of this information, the defendant, ERIK RAUL TORRES, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1), any and all property constituting or derived from 3 proceeds the said defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the said violations and any and all property used or intended to be used in any manner or part to commit and to facilitate the commission of the offenses. C. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant: (1) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (2) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party; (3) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (4) has been substantially diminished in value; or (5) has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty. the United States of America shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). All pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1). GEORGE L. BECK, JR. Assistant United States Attorney 4

PLEA AGREEMENT as to Erik Raul Torres

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) V. CR.NO.) ERIK RAUL TORRES) PLEA AGREEMENT DEFENSE COUNSEL: Jay A. White ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: Jonathan S. Ross COUNTS AND STATUTES CHARGED Count I: 21 U.S.C. § 846-Conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance Count 2 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)-Conspiracy to commit money laundering COUNTS PLEADING PURSUANT TO PLEA AGREEMENT Count I 21 U.S.C. § 846 Count 2 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) STATUTORY MAXIMUM PENALTIES Count I 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (b)(I)(C), 846 A term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years, a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years; an assessment fee of $100; and an order of restitution. Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) A term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years, a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or both; a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years; an assessment fee of $100; and an order of restitution. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES Count 1: 21 U.S.C. § 846 First: Two or more persons agreed to violate the federal drug laws by knowingly distributing or dispensing, or causing to be distributed or dispensed, a controlled substance outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose; Second: the defendant knew the essential objective of the conspiracy; and Third: there was interdependence among the members of the conspiracy. Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) First: Two or more persons agreed to commit a money laundering offense; and Second: the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in that agreement. Jonathan S. Ross, Assistant United States Attorney, and Jay A. White, attorney for the defendant, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, have, with the authorization of the defendant, heretofore entered into discussions with a view towards reaching a pretrial conclusion of the charges pending in the information and the parties have reached a plea agreement. The parties submit the plea pursuant to Rule 11 (c)(1)(B), and the parties understand that, the terms of the plea agreement do not bind the Court and if they are not accepted by the Court, the defendant will not be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty. The parties further understand that, if at any time, the defendant breaches this agreement, his guilty plea may not be withdrawn. GOVERNMENT'S PROVISIONS 1. Upon entering a plea of guilty by the defendant to the offense charged in counts 1 and 2 of the information, the following will occur: a. The Government will agree that a 2-level decrease in the applicable offense level pursuant to § 3E1.l(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines for the defendant's acceptance of responsibility is appropriate, so long as between the date of this 2 agreement and the date of sentencing, the defendant does not obstruct justice, commit any new federal or state offense, or otherwise fail to accept responsibility for the offense conduct. Should the Government find the defendant assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the defendant's own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of the defendant's intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the Government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Government and this Court to allocate their resources efficiently, and if the defendant otherwise qualifies, the Government will move at the sentencing hearing for a further reduction of one level, pursuant to § 3El.1(b). Determination of whether the defendant met the defendant's obligations to qualify for the reduction pursuant to § 3El.1 is at the sole discretion of the Government. b. The Government will agree to recommend, pursuant to Rule II (c)(l)(B), that if a term of imprisonment is imposed, a term of imprisonment of no higher than the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, as recommended by the United States Probation Office (Probation) and calculated by the Court at the sentencing hearing, is the appropriate disposition of the case. C. The Government will agree not to seek any upward departure from the applicable advisory Guidelines range, as determined by the Court at the sentencing hearing, and to not seek a variance. d. The Government will agree that, for purposes of calculating the defendant's advisory Guidelines range, the defendant was a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity, and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. e. The Government will agree that, for purposes of calculating the defendant's advisory Guidelines range, the defendant's offense conduct involved a quantity of 3 oxycodone that was equivalent to at least 400 kilograms of marihuana but less than 700 kilograms of marihuana. 2. The Government makes no representation regarding the defendant's criminal history category, which will be recommended by Probation, and determined by the Court. 3. The Government reserves the right to inform the Court and Probation of all facts pertinent to the sentencing process, including all relevant information concerning the offense and the defendant's background. DEFENDANT'S PROVISIONS 4. The defendant agrees with paragraphs I through 3 of the Government's provisions and further agrees to the following: a. To plead guilty to counts I and 2 of the information and waive his right to indictment by grand jury. b. To not commit any state, federal, or local crimes pending sentencing. C. To waive appeal and collateral attack as detailed below. 5. The defendant expressly waives any right to argue for a sentence below the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range as calculated by the Court at the sentencing hearing. The defendant preserves, however, the right to object to Probation's recommended advisory Guidelines range, including specifically, the right to object to Probation's failure to recommend the application of any departure provision set forth in the Guidelines manual. FACTUAL BASIS 6. The defendant admits the allegations charged in counts 1 and 2 of the information and understands that the nature of the charges to which the plea is offered involves proof as to counts I and 2 of the information. Specifically, the defendant admits the following to be true 4 and correct: a. Starting in or about September 2012 and continuing until in or about September 2013, the defendant owned EMEDS Medical Management, Inc. (EMEDS), a pain management clinic in Opelika, Lee County, Alabama. b. Tones formed EMEDS to be a "pill mill," that is, EMEDS was a medical clinic created to dispense controlled substances inappropriately, unlawfully, and for non-medical purposes. C. Tones was not a physician, and thus, could not prescribe controlled substances as medication. Therefore, in or around September 2012, Tones hired a physician to work at EMEDS, Francisco Huidor-Figueroa. Tones instructed Huidor-Figueroa to prescribe controlled substances to patients even when the patients did not need such medication, or did not need such medication in the quantities Torres asked Huidor-Figueroa to prescribe. d. Sometime before September 2012, Tones also hired Marc Oliver Adam to serve as the financial director of EMEDS. Tones instructed Adam to, inter alia: (1) deposit cash payments from EMEDS's patients into EMEDS's bank account; (2) write checks from that bank account to pay EMEDS's expenses, including paying Huidor-Figueroa a percentage of EMEDS's profits; and (3) manage EMEDS's office staff. In turn, Tones promised Adam a percentage of EMEDS's net profits. e. Accordingly, beginning in or about September 2012, and continuing until in or about September 2013, Tones conspired with Huidor-Figueroa and Adam to violate the federal drug laws by causing to be dispensed oxycodone, a schedule H controlled substance, to patients, knowing that there was no legitimate medical purpose to the patients' receipt or usage of oxycod one. 5 f. Specifically, at Torres's direction, l-luidor-Figueroa wrote prescriptions for oxycodone, knowing that the medication prescribed would serve no legitimate medical purpose. g. To further perpetuate Huidor-Figueroa's prescribing of controlled substances, Tones sanctioned a scheme whereby employees of EMEDS prepared fraudulent magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) reports. The fraudulent reports diagnosed conditions that would justify the prescribing of pain medication. But, the fraudulent reports were not prepared by a radiologist (as a real MR[report should be) and were not based on any review of actual MRI images. h. Additionally, beginning in or about September 2012, and continuing until in or about September 2013, Tortes conspired with Huidor-Figueroa and Adam to commit a money laundering offense, that is, to engage in financial transactions using the proceeds of the unlawful drug distribution described above intended to promote the carrying on of a specified unlawful activity (the unlawful drug distribution), knowing that the funds involved in the transactions represented proceeds of unlawful conduct. i. Specifically, the co-conspirators agreed to promote the specified unlawful activity by paying Huidor-Figueroa and thus ensuring that Huidor-Figueroa, whose medical license and authority to prescribe medication were essential to the scheme, continued to prescribe medically unnecessary drugs. j. For example, Huidor-Figueroa received the following payments as a result of the conspiracy among Tones, Adam. and Huidor-Figueroa (1) on October 26, 2012, a payment of $7,330.00 on EMEDS's check number 1004, signed by Tortes; (2) on December 21, 2012, a payment of $6,000 on EMEDS's check number 1040, signed by Torres; and (3) on March 1, 2013, a payment of $8,218.00 on EMEDS's check number 1062, signed by Adam. 6 DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL AND COLLATERAL ATTACK 7. Understanding that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 provides for appeal by a defendant of the sentence under certain circumstances, the defendant expressly waives any and all rights conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742 to appeal the sentence. The defendant specifically waives the right to appeal the sentence on the grounds that: (I) the advisory Guidelines are in any respect unconstitutional; (2) any fact found by the Court for sentencing was not alleged in the information, admitted by the defendant, found by ajury, or found beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the sentence imposed was unreasonable; or (4) that the Court erred in determining the applicable Guidelines range pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant further expressly waives the right to appeal his conviction and sentence on any other ground and waives the right to attack his conviction and sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This waiver does not include the right to appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct, or to collaterally attack the sentence imposed on those grounds. But, other than those grounds, the defendant expressly waives the right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction or sentence on any other ground. 8. In return for the above waiver by the defendant, the Government does not waive its right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case. The Government does not waive its right to appeal any order dismissing the information, vacating a sentence, or otherwise terminating the prosecution at any stage of the proceedings. Further, the parties agree that nothing in this agreement shall affect the Government's right and/or duty to appeal as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b). However, if the Government decides to exercise its right to appeal, the defendant is released from his appeal waiver and may pursue any appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742. 7 APPLICATION OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 9. The parties understand that the Court is neither a party to nor bound by this agreement. The Court may or may not follow the recommendation set forth in the agreement, or defer its decision until it has had an opportunity to consider the presentence report prepared by Probation. The defendant understands and acknowledges that, although the parties are permitted to make recommendations and present arguments to the Court, the sentence and the United States Sentencing Guidelines, if any, applicable to defendant's case will be determined solely by the Court, with the assistance of Probation. The defendant understands that the Court is required to consider any applicable sentencing guidelines, but may depart from these provisions under some circumstances. The defendant acknowledges that the defendant and the defendant's attorney have discussed the advisory Guidelines and the defendant understands how the Guidelines are applicable to the defendant's case. The defendant further understands that the Court will consider the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in imposing a sentence. Specifically, the Court will consider (a) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (b) the need for the sentence imposed-(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (c) the kinds of sentences available; (d) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the sentencing guidelines; (e) any pertinent policy statement-(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act of Congress; and (B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; (f) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with 8 similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (g) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). THE DEFENDANT'S UNDERSTANDING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 10. The defendant, before entering a plea of guilty to counts 1 and 2 of information advises the Court that: a. The discussions between the attorney for the Government and the attorney for the defendant towards reaching an agreed plea in this case have taken place with the defendant's authorization and consent. b. The defendant acknowledges that a breach of this plea agreement by the defendant, including committing another federal, state, or local offense prior to sentencing on the pending charges, will not entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea in this case. The defendant understands and acknowledges that the defendant's guilty plea will remain in full force and effect upon any breach of this agreement by the defendant. C. The defendant further understands that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3103, the 8200.00 assessment fee is to be paid by the defendant on the date of sentencing. The defendant will make an honest, good faith effort to pay said fee as directed by the Financial Litigation Section of the Office of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. The defendant further understands that by completing and submitting to the Court or to the Government any financial statements, the defendant is representing that the statement is true and accurate to the best of the defendant's information, knowledge, and belief. d. The defendant understands that the defendant has a right to be represented by an attorney at every stage of the proceedings against the defendant and is represented by the defendant's attorney, Jay A. White. C. The defendant understands that the defendant has the right to plead not guilty and has the right to be tried by a jury and, at a trial, has the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the defendant, the right to call witnesses in the defendant's own behalf, and the right not to be compelled to incriminate the defendant, and that if the defendant enters a plea of guilty, there will not be a further trial of any kind and that by the entry of such a plea, the defendant waives the right to a trial by jury or to a trial before the Court. f. The defendant further understands that in entering a plea of guilty, the Court may ask questions about the offenses to which the plea is entered and further understands that if the defendant answers these questions under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel, which questions and answers would be recorded, that the answers may later be used against the defendant in a prosecution for perjury or making a false statement if the answers are not truthful. g. The defendant further understands and advises the Court that the plea agreement as set forth and the plea to be entered by the defendant as a result thereof is voluntary on the defendant's part and is not the result of any force or threats or of any promises apart from the plea agreement. The defendant further advises the Court that the plea agreement is the result of prior discussions between the attorney for the Government and the attorney for the defendant, all conducted with the defendant's authorization, knowledge and consent. h. The defendant further advises the Court that the defendant's understanding of this plea agreement is as set forth in this document. The defendant further advises the Court that it is understood that the Government can only make a recommendation which is not binding on the Court. j. The defendant further advises the Court that the defendant understands and has been advised that evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn or an offer to plead guilty to the crimes charged in the information, or of statements made in connection with and relevant to said plea or offer to plead, shall not be admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings against the defendant. However, the defendant does understand that evidence of a statement made in connection with and relevant to a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or an offer to plead guilty to the crimes charged in the information, is admissible in a criminal proceeding for perjury or making a false statement when the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the court record, and in the presence of counsel. k. The defendant is satisfied that defense counsel has been competent and effective in representing defendant. 11. The attorneys for the Government and for the defendant represent to the Court that the foregoing plea agreement is the agreement of the parties that has been reached pursuant to the plea agreement procedure provided for in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The attorney for the defendant further advises the Court that the defendant has been advised of the nature of the charges to which the foregoing described plea is to be offered, and that the defendant has been advised of the defendant's right to plead not guilty and to be tried by a jury on all issues; of the maximum possible penalty provided by law; that by the entering of a plea of guilty, the defendant waives the right to be tried by a jury or by the Court, waives the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the defendant and the right not to be compelled to incriminate the defendant; and that if the defendant pleads guilty, there will not be a further trial of any kind. Further, the defendant has been advised that if the defendant pleads ir guilty, the Court may ask questions about the offense to which the defendant has pleaded and that if the plea is rejected or later withdrawn, that the answers to such questions may not be used against the defendant in a civil or criminal proceeding, but that the defendant's answers may later be used against the defendant in a prosecution for perjury or false statement if the answers are not truthful. 12 12. The defendant understands that Probation will prepare a presentence investigation report for the Court. The probation officer will consider the defendant's conduct related to the offense to which the plea if offered, as well as the defendant's criminal history. The offense level or criminal history category as calculated by the probation officer and determined by the court may differ from that projected by the defendant's counsel or the Government. In the event that the Court determines the defendant's offense level or criminal history category to be higher than the defendant anticipated, the defendant will have no right to withdraw the plea on that basis. This H4A. day o, 2016. Respectfully submitted, GEORGE L. BECK, JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Louis V. Fr nklin, Sr. Jon4than S. Ross Criminal Chief Assistant United States Attorney 13 I have read the foregoing plea agreement, understand the same, and the matters and facts set forth therein accurately and correctly state the representations that have been made to me and accurately set forth the conditions of the plea agreement that has been reached. IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS TO WHICH I AGREE, I SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FACTS IN THE "FACTUAL BASIS' PARAGRAPH ABOVE ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT I HAVE RECEIVED COMPETENT ADVICE AND REPRESENTATION FROM MY DEFENSE COUNSEL, Jay A. White. Erik Raul Tones Defendant/Date Jay A" Attorn for e Defendant Date 14

MOTION to Strike Forfeiture Allegation by USA as to Erik Raul Torres.

Case 3:16-cr-00025-JFD-TFM Document 32 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)) v.) CASE NO. 3:16-cr-25-JFD) ERIK RAUL TORRES) MOTION TO STRIKE FORFEITURE ALLEGATION Comes now the United States of America, by and through George L. Beck, Jr., United States Attorney, Middle District of Alabama, and Kevin P. Davidson, Assistant United States Attorney, and hereby moves this Court to strike the forfeiture allegation from the Information. A proposed Order is filed herewith. Respectfully submitted this 19th day of December, 2016. GEORGE L. BECK, JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY/s/Kevin P. Davidson KEVIN P. DAVIDSON Assistant United States Attorney 131 Clayton Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 Telephone: (334) 223-7280 Facsimile: (334) 223-7106 E-mail: Kevin.P.Davidson@usdoj.gov Case 3:16-cr-00025-JFD-TFM Document 32 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 19, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. Respectfully submitted,/s/Kevin P. Davidson KEVIN P. DAVIDSON Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER granting {{37}} Motion to Travel as to Erik Raul Torres (1). Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 8/30/17.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)) v.) CR. NO. 3:16cr 25-JFD) ERIK RAUL TORRES) ORDER Pending before the court is the Unopposed Motion to Allow Travel (Doc. 37). For good cause shown, the Unopposed Motion to Allow Travel (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. DONE THIS 30th day of August, 2017./s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 361 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
02/23/2016
FELONY INFORMATION as to Erik Raul Torres (1) count(s) 1, 2. Forfeiture Allegations-STRICKEN PER ORDER of 12/20/2016. Modified on 12/20/2016 to add text.
3
02/25/2016
MOTION to Seal the Information by USA as to Erik Raul Torres.
4
02/26/2016
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney: Jay Allen White. by Erik Raul Torres.
1
Attachments
1 Attachment
5
02/26/2016
NOTICE of Intent to Plead Guilty at Arraignment by Erik Raul Torres.
6
02/29/2016
NOTICE to Retained Criminal Defense Attorney as to Erik Raul Torres
7
03/01/2016
TEXT ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Erik Raul Torres (1). Entered by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/1/2016.
8
03/01/2016
ORDER as to Erik Raul Torres: Consent Plea Hearing set for 3/3/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A before Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer. The Clerk is directed to provide a court reporter for this proceeding. If the defendant is in custody, the United States Marshal or the person having custody of the defendant shall produce the defendant for this proceeding. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 3/1/2016.
9
03/01/2016
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Robert Randolph Neeley appearing for USA.
03/03/2016
Minute Entry for Initial Appearance held before Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer as to Erik Raul Torres held on 3/3/2016 (PDF available for court use only). SEE FINAL CONSENT PLEA MINUTES FOR PDF. (Recording Time 9:07-9:10.) (Text entry; no document attached.)
10
03/03/2016
Consent to Enter Guilty Plea before U. S. Magistrate Judge as to Erik Raul Torres
11
03/03/2016
PLEA AGREEMENT as to Erik Raul Torres
12
03/03/2016
PLEA AGREEMENT ADDENDUM as to Erik Raul Torres
13
03/03/2016
Minute Entry for Consent Plea Hearing held before Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer as to Erik Raul Torres on 3/3/2016. GUILTY PLEA entered as to count(s) 1-2. (Court Reporter: Risa Entreking) (PDF available for court use only) (Recording Time 9:07-9:51.) Modified on 3/3/2016.
03/03/2016
ORAL ORDER accepting guilty plea and adjudicating defendant as guilty as to Erik Raul Torres. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 3/3/2016. (Text entry; no document attached.)
16
03/03/2016
ORDER as to Erik Raul Torres: Sentencing set for 7/14/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2FMJ before Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/3/2016.
17
04/18/2016
ORDER denying without prejudice 3 Motion to Seal as to Erik Raul Torres (1). Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 4/18/2016.
04/18/2016
Case as to Erik Raul Torres Reassigned to Honorable Joel F. Dubina. Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson no longer assigned to the case. (Text entry; no document attached.)
18
04/25/2016
DESIGNATION OF UNITED STATES JUDGE FOR SERVICE WITHIN THE CIRCUIT as to Erik Raul Torres by Chief Judge Ed Carnes
21
06/14/2016
ORDER as to Erik Raul Torres, GRANTING 20 MOTION to Continue filed by Erik Raul Torres and 19 MOTION to SEAL filed by Erik Raul Torres. Sentencing set for 7/14/2016 is RESCHEDULED to 8/18/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2F before Honorable Joel F. Dubina. Signed by Honorable Joel F. Dubina on 6/14/2016.
22
07/12/2016
MOTION to Continue by USPO as to Erik Raul Torres.
23
07/12/2016
ORDER as to Erik Raul Torres granting 22 MOTION to Continue sentencing filed by USA. Sentencing set for 8/18/2016 is CONTINUED to 9/20/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2A before Honorable Joel F. Dubina. Signed by Honorable Joel F. Dubina on 7/12/16.
25
08/18/2016
ORDER as to Erik Raul Torres granting 24 MOTION to SEAL filed by USA and resetting Sentencing now set for 9/20/16 to 12/21/2016 10:00 AM before Honorable Joel F. Dubina. Signed by Honorable Joel F. Dubina on 8/18/2016.
28
11/08/2016
ORDER as to Erik Raul Torres that on November 3, 2016, the government filed a motion to continue sentencing (currently set for 12/21/16)and on November 2, 2016, the government filed a motion to seal its motion tocontinue sentencing. Upon consideration of those matters contained in thegovernment's motions and for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that saidmotions be and the same are hereby GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Joel F. Dubina on 11/8/2016. (sentencing continued generally)
30
11/29/2016
ORDER granting 29 Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release as to Erik Raul Torres (1) Prior to traveling outside the Middle District of Alabama, however, Torres is ORDERED and DIRECTED to notify pretrial services of his intentions. Signed by Honorable Joel F. Dubina on 11/29/2016.
31
12/01/2016
TEXT ORDER as to Erik Raul Torres AMENDING 30 Order on Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release to state that prior to traveling outside the Middle District of Alabama or the Southern District of Florida, Torres is ORDERED and DIRECTED to notify pretrial services of his intentions; All other provisions remain in effect. Entered by Honorable Joel F. Dubina on 12/1/16. (NO PDF ATTACHED).
32
12/19/2016
MOTION to Strike Forfeiture Allegation by USA as to Erik Raul Torres.
1
Text of Proposed Order
1 Attachment
33
12/20/2016
ORDER granting 32 Motion to Strike FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS as to Erik Raul Torres (1). Signed by Honorable Joel F. Dubina on 12/20/16.
37
08/24/2017
MOTION to Travel by Erik Raul Torres.
38
08/30/2017
ORDER granting 37 Motion to Travel as to Erik Raul Torres (1). Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 8/30/17.
50
06/05/2018
Order on Sealed Motion
52
06/14/2018
Order
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.