Edison Misla Aldarondo

Edison Misla Aldarondo served as a member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives from 1977 until a series of scandals and legal problems led to his resignation in 2002. The primary legal scandal surrounding Edison Misla Aldarondo had its origins in the mid 1990s, when Puerto Rico began the process of privatizing its formerly state-operated hospitals. This process was overseen by two government entities, the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDH) and the Government Development Bank (GDB).

Edison Misla Aldarondo was involved in influence peddling regarding the Dr. Alejandro Otero Lopez Hospital (HAOL), which at that time was managed by the Caribbean Hospital Organization (CHC). HAOL received anesthesiology from Caribbean Anesthesia Services (CAS), which wished to purchase the hospital.

To effect this, the co-owners of CAS hired consultant Jose Ivan Ramos Cubano to assist in this transaction. Cubano first arranged for a meeting with the head of the legal department of PRDH and bribed him to allow CAS to purchase CHC's management contract, a necessary preliminary step to acquiring the hospital as a whole. Once this was done, Cubano approached Edison Misla Aldarondo, a close friend of the president of the GDB, Marcos Rodriguez Ema. Edison Misla Aldarondo accepted a bribe to arrange meetings between the anesthesiology company and the GDB.

In 1997, a law firm reviewing the potential hospital buyers warned that CAS should not be allowed to complete the transaction because it owed a substantive debt to the PRDH. However, Ema overruled this recommendation and arranged for CAS to purchase the hospital for $14 million. Ema also created an agreement to allow CAS to repay its debt to PRDH at a later date. Following this successful transaction, Edison Misla Aldarondo received payments totaling $147,000 from the hospital's new owners.

A 2001 investigation by the Puerto Rico Department of Justice led authorities to Cubano, who agreed to cooperate. In October 2001, Cubano recorded conversations he had with Edison Misla Aldarondo. In these recordings, Edison Misla Aldarondo openly discussed his illegal actions and outlined plans to create a false story concerning the payments he had received. These recordings led to an indictment by a grand jury by the end of the month. Subsequently, Edison Misla Aldarondo was convicted in a jury trial and sentenced to 71 months in jail.

In addition to his involvement in corrupt privatization practices, in 2002 Edison Misla Aldarondo was charged with rape of a minor. Witness testimony revealed that Edison Misla Aldarondo had taken advantage of a friend of his step-daughter by plying both girls with alcohol and prescription medication. During the hearings, it emerged that Edison Misla Aldarondo had also molested his step-daughter periodically over the course of eight years. Following his incarceration for the case described above, Edison Misla Aldarondo negotiated with the prosecution to plead guilty to attempted rape rather than rape, for which he was sentenced to an additional 13 years in prison.

Clarence Ray Allen

Clarence Ray Allen was convicted of multiple murders in California. His death penalty sentence was executed despite public controversy about his age the time of death, which was 76.

Clarence Ray Allen first came to the attention of the law because of a burglary he organized in 1974. He invited over Bryon Schletewitz, the son of his friends Ray and Frances Schletewitz, who owned a grocery store. By distracting Bryon, Clarence Ray Allen obtained the keys to the star. He then robbed the store with his son Kenneth and two other accomplices. Subsequently, Kenneth's girlfriend, Mary Ann Kitts, told Bryon about how she had helped arrange the burglary, and Clarence decided that she had to be murdered. Under his two direction, two associates attempted to poison her with cyanide before finally strangling her. The body of Mary Ann Kitts was never recovered.

From August 1974 through March 1977, Clarence Ray Allen planned and executed a series of robberies, not all of which were successful. One, an armed robbery of a K-Mart, ended with a gang member fatally shooting a bystander. Arrested for his role in the heist, Clarence Ray Allen was tried and convicted first for the robbery, then again for the murder of Mary Ann Kitts.

After being sentenced to jail on the first set of charges, Clarence Ray Allen was appealing the second conviction when he befriended fellow prisoner Billy Ray Hamilton, who was also incarcerated in Folsom State Prison in California. Allen convinced Hamilton to murder eight of the witnesses who had testified against him. Hamilton agreed and was released in August of 1980. After informing Kenneth Allen of his intentions, Billy Ray Hamilton went to the grocery store, murdering three of the employees and wounding another two. He was arrested within a week of the events.

Shortly thereafter, Kenneth Allen was arrested on separate drug charges and agreed to testify about the events leading up the killings in return for a plea bargain. In 1980, Clarence Ray Allen was put on trial for triple murder and conspiracy to kill eight individuals. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. Clarence Ray Allen filed an appeal, which was rejected by the California Supreme Court in 1987.

The appeals process led to another hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005. During these proceedings, the judges granted that the lawyers representing Clarence Ray Allen had performed their task inadequately, depriving him of his right to counsel, and that several other errors had occurred during the course of trial. However, they found that the evidence against Clarence Ray Allen was so unquestionably overwhelming that no retrial was necessary. A plea for clemency from the state's governor was rejected, as was a request for the Supreme Court to hear the case and another appeals court claim that executing a 76-year-old in ill health constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Clarence Ray Allen was executed by lethal injection in January of 2006.

Gary McKinnon

Gary McKinnon is a Scottish computer hacker who was the subject of a decade of legal dispute between the United Kingdom and the United States. He came to the attention of law enforcement authorities when he hacked into 97 computers between February 2001 and March 2002. The computers hacked into by Gary McKinnon belonged to both the United States military and the space agency NASA. The stated purpose of his activities was to obtain evidence of alien technology which Gary McKinnon stated he was certain American authorities were concealing.

Gary McKinnon was questioned by British authorities twice, in March and August of 2002. As the result of an American investigation, a grand jury in Virginia indicted Gary McKinnon in October of 2002 on seven counts of crimes committed via computers. In 2005, the American government filed a request with the British government to extradite Gary McKinnon to the United States for trial. In 2006, a district judge recommended that the extradition request be granted. In general, the United Kingdom has often complied with American requests to extradite, only rejecting the request in 11 cases out of over 130.

John Reid, then the home secretary of the United Kingdom, signed the extradition order for Gary McKinnon in July of 2006. Gary McKinnon appealed this decision, losing an appeal in British high court in 2007 and in the House of Lords in 2008. In August of 2008, Gary McKinnon was examined by a team of psychiatrists who diagnosed him with Asperger's, a type of autistic mental disorder. This diagnosis was then used as the basis of a legal argument that Gary McKinnon should not be extradited to the United States. At this time, it was also reported that Gary McKinnon was threatening to commit suicide if extradited to the United States.

Following this diagnosis, both the European Court of Human Rights and Jacqui Smith, who succeeded John Reid as home secretary, both again declined to halt the extradition process. In 2009, Gary McKinnon successfully applied for a judicial review of his extradition. In February, legal action was taken to attempt to obtain a trial for Gary McKinnon in the United Kingdom rather than the United States but was unsuccessful. 2009 concluded with the extradition order still potentially in effect.

In October of 2012, Gary McKinnon finally was successful in having the extradition request permanently denied by the British government. The decision was made by another home secretary, Theresa May. In her announcement, made in the Parliamentary House of Commons, Theresa May cited a law passed in 2003, the Human Rights Act. Under article 3 of this law, which prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment, she argued that extraditing Gary McKinnon to the United States where he might commit suicide would be a violation of this part of the law. The United States government was unhappy with the decision, which it said was not in accord with the status of the two countries as allies.

Joe Arpaio

Joe Arpaio is a controversial Arizona sheriff known for his strong, often provocative views on the detention and legal treatment of Hispanic citizens. He was elected to the position of sheriff of Maricopa County in 1992 and has been re-elected every four years since. Joe Arpaio has been the subject of many investigations and lawsuits related to his practices.

One prominent investigation of Joe Arpaio was conducted by the FBI. This investigation was initiated in 2008 at the request of Phil Gordon, then serving as the mayor of Phoenix, who claimed he was one of many people who had been targeted for legal action at the behest of Joe Arpaio. After two years of investigation regarding potential abuses of power, the FBI expanded the scope of its investigation to determine if any state crimes had been committed.

One of the crimes allegedly committed by employees working for Joe Arpaio concerned misuse of credit cards which use public funds to pay for certain expenses. In its investigation, the FBI and Department of Justice determined that though the financial records being maintained were inadequate, there was no evidence of misuse of public funds as such.

Another of the crimes allegedly committed under Joe Arpaio concerned the misuse of $84 million allocated for jails. Investigating complaints filed by county supervisors, the FBI investigation determined that the money had been used to pay salaries and expenses unrelated to maintenance of the jail. However, there was no evidence to suggest that Joe Arpaio had derived a personal profit from this misuse of funds. Therefore, the FBI declined to press charges against Joe Arpaio, since it would be impossible to prove that this misuse occurred with criminal intentions. As a result of the failure to find criminal intent in any actions committed by Joe Arpaio or his employees, the FBI ended its investigation after four years in 2012. 

Another lawsuit against Joe Arpaio which has yet to receive a resolution stems from the 2007 arrest of Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Mexican citizen who was visiting the United States legally. Following his arrest, Melendres was unlawfully detained for nine hours before being released. Melendres filed suit against Joe Arpaio that year and was soon joined by a number of other Latino plaintiffs, who alleged that they had been stopped and detained by the Maricopa County police solely on the basis of their ethnicity. The lawsuit alleges that the unlawful detention is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the strategy of targeting Latinos is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case has yet to reach a verdict. Pending his decision, district court judge Murray Snow issued an injunction forbidding Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County sheriff's department from conducting any further arrests or detentions on a racial basis. In December of 2011, Murray Snow also issued an injunction forbidding arrest or detention based solely on suspicion of the arrestee being an illegal immigrant.

Zacarias Moussaoui

Zacarias Moussaoui is a convicted terrorist who was involved in the planning of the attacks of September 11, 2001. His role in the attacks dated to a period between the end of February of 2001 to the end of May. During this time, Zacarias Moussaoui took flight lesson training with the goal of participating in the attacks. However, a decision was made not to include him in the plot, of which he was aware.

In August of 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested for immigration violations and detained. Following the events of September 11, he was named by another member of Al Qaeda as another jihadist with knowledge of the plot. Subsequently, in December of 2001 Zacarias Moussaoui was indicted by a grand jury on six charges, all related to his knowledge of the conspiracy and failure to report it to American authorities.

From 2002 to 2005, a series of appeals and legal rulings delayed the start of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. During this time, Zacarias Moussaoui met with a psychiatrist who determined, after evaluation, that he was mentally competent to be tried as a criminal defendant. After being granted the right to represent himself, Zacarias Moussaoui requested that he be allowed to use confidential documents to prepare his case, as well as permission to call detained Al Qaeda members as witnesses. The presiding judge declined to allow him access to the documents, conferring with federal authorities' statement that to do so would create issues of national security, but granted him the right to call Al Qaeda witnesses. The federal government refused to permit these witnesses to testify, a decision which was reversed by a court of appeals.

Zacarias Moussaoui initially pled not guilty to the charges but eventually entered guilty pleas to all charges before the start of the trial. His trial began in 2006. During the course of the trial, FBI agents testified of their awareness of plans to use hijacked aircraft to destroy American buildings. Zacarias Moussaoui also testified, again claiming that he had been involved in a separate conspiracy.

In May of 2006, the jury found Zacarias Moussaoui guilty of the charges against him. During the subsequent sentencing proceedings, jurors were unable to agree on the death penalty due to one dissenting juror. Therefore, Zacarias Moussaoui was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences. He was not made eligible for parole.

After the trial had come to an end, Zacarias Moussaoui waived his right to appeal the sentence. Subsequently, in May of 2006 he filed an appeal in federal court, in which he recanted his plea of guilty and disclaimed involvement in or advance knowledge of the events of September 11. Instead, he now claimed that he had been involved in a separate conspiracy to hijack a commercial aircraft to rescue a fellow jihadist being held in Afghanistan.

However, since he had already waived his right to appeal, his motion was dismissed. 

Cleveland, OH— For 42 year old criminal defense attorney Ian Friedman, the law bug bit him early.

“My mother would tell you I wanted to be a criminal defense lawyer when I was in the fifth grade,” Friedman told laws.com in a recent interview.  “I took a position against the death penalty during a class debate.  Truth be told, I always wanted to be a prosecutor.”  Friedman's love of prosecution was thwarted by a hiring freeze during his time in law school, but this turned out to be fortunate after all.

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

“I took a job in a criminal defense firm,” he explains.  “My research in my first case revealed the government's concealment of evidence.  From that point, I knew my place was as a criminal defense lawyer.”

Today, Friedman says that the greatest challenge to criminal defense attorneys is a lack of respect for the judicial process from people both inside and outside the legal system.  “Our nightly legal commentators treat our trials more like game shows.  Politicians seek advancement by criticizing and whittling away at citizens' constitutional rights,” he laments.

“Finally, the art and practice of real trial lawyering is in peril.  Judges choose expediency over meaningful voir dire, for one example,” Friedman continues.  “I am also disappointed by the lack of creativity I see in the courtroom today.  Too many young lawyers only know what they have seen on Law & Order, and that's a shame.”

While Friedman, like most criminal defense attorneys, started out being unable to do much picking and choosing of cases, the situation has changed now.  “Today, I have the privilege of overseeing a firm of lawyers that practice across the country and overseas,” he says.  “People don't come to us with the easy cases.  They are complex, unpopular, and carry horrid penalties.  I feel that the most difficult and unpopular cases need the best lawyering.”

Friedman believes that he has accomplished his mission to fight for those who most need defending.  “If I were to stop tomorrow, I would be satisfied that I made my mark,” he says.  “I have saved innocent people from lifetimes in prison.  I have taught students at the Cleveland Marshall College of Law how to be good lawyers for years, now.”

In 2005, Friedman was declared  President of the Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and one of his missions was to change the way evidence was provided to defendants in criminal cases. This led him to create the trial strategy called “Ohio Open-Discovery.” Friedman says that the creation of this trial strategy is one of his proudest accomplishments of his career because it eliminated a prosecution tactic of “trial by ambush.” The defendant would be kept in the dark about key evidence and witnesses against them until the moment the witness testified in court. He spearheaded the open discovery movement.

One of his proudest moments occurred on July 1, 2010, the “Ohio Open-Discovery” strategy led to him win a prestigious award from the primary regional bar association. Friedman recalls, “I was seated next to my father.  He said, 'you did good, kid.  What you did will save countless lives after you are long gone.'  I have been asked many times why I did it.  Why did I give so much money, time, and energy?  The answer is simply because it was right.  That is why I do what I do.”

Ian Friedman founded his firm, Friedman & Frey, L.L.C.,  on the belief in the constitutional protection afforded all individuals accused of a crime, and that every citizen deserves nothing less than zealous advocacy by a dedicated lawyer. As a result of years of hard work and dedication to representing their clients, the lawyers of Friedman & Frey, L.L.C., have amassed an extensive number of successful results. To learn more about his practice visit www.iannfriedman.com

Baltimore—Inspiration came early for Charles Curlett, whose legal career has gone on a path from prosecuting war criminals to opening Levin & Curlett, a Maryland and Washington  D.C. litigation boutique.

“When I was in the 8^th grade, I took a week long mini-course in school called 'Mock Murder Trial,'” Curlett recalled in a recent interview with laws.com.  “I was appointed the lead defense counsel.  I think that early taste for courtroom drama stuck with me.  I read every book I could find on criminal trials—from Inherit the Wind to To Kill a Mockingbird.”

(More on News at LAWS.com, Contact Alberto for interviews “support@laws.com”)

For aspiring lawyers, Curlett has career advice.  “Choose your first job wisely.  It is perhaps easier said than done in this difficult job market, but it is important to pursue your passion.  Try to find a job that will allow you to do what you want to do, even if it pays less.”

Curlett's first job in the legal field involved working in the Hague, prosecuting a Bosnian Serb general, Radislav Krstic, for genocide in the former Yugoslavia.  “I worked alongside a former federal prosecutor, Peter McCloskey, who was my first true legal mentor,” he says.  He taught me a great deal about how to investigate and prepare a case.  I learned the importance of thorough preparation, a touchstone of successful lawyering.”

Now working as a defense attorney, Curlett believes that the biggest challenges facing defendants today are “adequate funding for indigent defendants and mandatory minimum sentences.”

In his litigation firm, Curlett is able to provide service to some clients who don't have the means to pay for a lawyer.  “Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently commented that indigent defendants don't have the right to a 'Cadillac' lawyer—meaning the best lawyer that money can buy,” he explained.  

“But, she noted, people accused of crimes do deserve at least a 'Ford Taurus' defense.  Because we believe in the constitutional right to an attorney, we devote a portion of our practice to defending people who would not otherwise be able to afford to hire us.  We give them better than a Taurus.”

At Levin & Curlett, better than a Taurus means representation by a firm with highly experienced attorneys, who specialize in defending businesses and individuals.  The firm's attorneys also work to represent whistleblowers in False Claims Act and Qui Tam litigation.

When it comes to working at his own firm, Curlett says he made the right decision.  “I think every lawyer harbors at least a latent desire to hang out the proverbial shingle at some point in his or her career,” he says.  “I have been practicing law for almost 15 years, and finally did so about a year and a half ago.  I am pleased to report that I could not be happier.”

Being your own boss means that you have to pick your team wisely, according to Curlett.  “My law partner—and finding the right one is critically important—is an experienced former federal prosecutor and military judge.  We work hard, enjoy an excellent reputation in our community, and have the freedom to define our practice by taking cases we enjoy and believe in.”

To learn more about Charles Curlett and his practice click here.

Scott Feil

Scott Feil is a California businessman and former medical marijuana dispensary owner. The medical marijuana dispensary in question, United Medical Caregivers Clinic, was operating in 2005 when it became the target of local and federal legal action.

Scott Feil became interested in medical marijuana following the death of his father in 1998. His first dispensary was opened in the city of Ukiah. After a few years of successful operation, he decided to open another dispensary in Los Angeles. In both cases, operation of the dispensaries was approved by the state. The dispensaries were two of 74 licensed at that time to operate in the state.

In March 2005, a Los Angeles Police Department officer examined the paperwork of the United Medical Caregivers Clinic. The clinic was opened 2003 after Scott Feil obtained paperwork approving his operation from the state of California. Many medical marijuana dispensaries operate in the state, though their status under federal law is unclear. After visiting the clinic, the police obtained a search warrant from a judge. However, during their application they did not document the previous visit or note that they were aware that the clinic was operating legally under state law.

The United Medical Caregivers Clinic was subsequently raided by the LAPD, which confiscated $186,416 it claimed were obtained as part of illegal transactions. Scott Feil subsequently filed an appeal seeking a return of these assets, arguing that they were legally obtained under California law. A federal court found that the warrant used in the raid had been obtained in a misleading way, but still ruled that Scott Feil had forfeited his funds.

Scott Feil appealed this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2009, the court ruled in favor of Scott Feil, ordering the LAPD to return the confiscated funds. In its decision, the court noted its concern that the LAPD could conduct similar illegal searches for its own enrichment. However, prior to the return of this verdict Scott Feil was became the defendant in federal criminal charges related to his previous ownership of the United Medical Caregivers Clinic, which was sold after 2005 and ceased operation in 2007. Scott Feil was charged with tax evasion and other legal infractions related to operation of the clinic.

The resulting case, known as USA v. Feil, was initially resolved when Scott Feil agreed to plead guilty and accept a plea bargain that would result in a large financial penalty. However, after this agreement was reached, the terms of the plea bargain were changed. The government said it wanted Scott Feil to serve five years in federal prison. Charges were also filed against his wife, his father in law, and three other former participants in the operation of the United Medical Caregivers Clinic. In preparing his defense, Scott Feil's lawyers planned to once again focus on the issue of misconduct by the prosecuting authorities. 

Warren Jeffs

Warren Jeffs is the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), an offshoot of the Mormon church.  He inherited this position from his father upon the latter's death and was known as a practitioner of polygamous marriage. He also arranged marriages for the members of his church, including marriages between underage girls and older men. Prior to his arrests in multiple states, he had attracted legal attention for these activities.

Due to increasing legal attention, Warren Jeffs became a fugitive after last being seen on his Texas ranch at the beginning of 2005. He was apprehended by Nevada authorities in August of 2006 and agreed to voluntarily return to Utah to stand trial on charges of rape. The charges related to a marriage which Warren Jeffs arranged in 2001 between then-14-year-old Elissa Wall and her 19-year-old first cousin Allen Steed. Wall's attorneys charged that Warren Jeffs had arranged the marriage with the knowledge that it would result in non-consensual sex, making him an accessory to the repeated rape of the underage girl.

Warren Jeffs' defense attorney argued that while his client had arranged the marriage, he had never intended for it to result in rape. His client was found guilty and an appeal was filed, which ultimately resulted in a new order being ordered by the Utah Supreme Court in 2010. In their decision, the court agreed with the argument presented by Warren Jeffs' attorney that the presiding judge in the trial had committed a legal error in directing the jury to focus on Warren Jeffs' intent rather than his role in enabling the rapes.

In 2011, Warren Jeffs was tried in San Antonio, Texas. The charges filed against him concerned sexual assault committed on two of his wives, who were aged 12 and 15 at the time. To prove the former charge, the prosecution played an audio recording of Warren Jeffs having intercourse with the woman. To prove the latter charge, the prosecution presented DNA evidence that Warrens Jeffs was the father of the 15-year-old girl's child. During the course of the trial, prosecutors presented a great deal of evidence, largely acquired during a raid on the Texas ranch of Warren Jeffs. This included information about the role of Warren Jeffs in consistently arranging underage marriages. Prosecutors revealed that Warren Jeffs had 78 wives, 12 of whom he had married when they were 16, and another 12 who had been married at age 15 or younger.

Warren Jeffs chose to conduct his own defense. During the course of the trial, he only called one witness to the stand, an adherent of his church who read passages from Mormon scripture while in the witness stand. The jury hearing the case found him guilty. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury took 30 minutes to decide to sentence Warren Jeffs to life in prison plus 20 years.

Daniel Maldonado

Daniel Maldonado is an American citizen who was arrested for his role in fighting alongside Muslim terrorists in Somalia. He was the first American to be prosecuted for such actions.

Daniel Maldonado was a resident of Houston, Texas when he went to to Africa, arriving in Somalia in December 2006 after spending more than a year traveling across the continent. According to charges filed against Daniel Maldonado, he joined a group called the Islamic Groups Union, which had been classified as a terrorist organization. Under their auspices, Daniel Maldonado received training with weapons and explosives.

According to Daniel Maldonado, his goal in moving to Somalia was solely to live in an Islamic state. However, he was charged with actively volunteering for terrorist activities in the state of Somalia. During his training, Daniel Maldonado allegedly associated with members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. In January of 2007, Daniel Maldonado was apprehended by members of the Kenyan military. During this time, he was separated from his wife, who later died in a hospital due to malaria. At the time, the criminal complaint against him claimed Daniel Maldonado had been trying to elude law enforcement representing the Ethiopian and Somalian government forces seeking those involved in Al Qaeda-backed terrorist activities.

Following his capture by Kenyan authorities, Daniel Maldonado was transferred to American law enforcement officials. He was then flown back to Houston, where his arraignment hearing resulted in his indefinite detention pending trial. At this time, Daniel Maldonado was separated from his three children, who had been with him up to this point. During this time, Daniel Maldonado agreed to plead guilty to a charge of receiving training from a terrorist organization in return for having charges of conspiracy to use an explosive device in another country dropped. If the latter charge had been filed against him and resulted in a guilty verdict, it could have resulted in a life imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000.

During his pretrial interrogations, Daniel Maldonado was inconsistent in admitting to his training with Al Qaeda representatives, as well as inconsistent in his statements about his willingness to participate in activities which could harm American citizens. As part of his trial, charges were filed against Daniel Maldonado by an FBI agent. Investigation and prosecution was handled by members of the FBI, as well as members of the Houston Police Department, the Department of State, and the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In anticipation of his sentencing, his mother filed a five-page appeal seeking clemency from the judge hearing the case.

Ultimately, Daniel Maldonado was found guilty of the charges against him and sentenced to a 10 year term in federal prison, along with a fine of $10,000. He is currently serving his sentence in a federal facility and cannot be released until he has served a minimum of eight years in prison.