Court filing — C.D. Cal. No. 2:20-cr-00229 (Dkt. 41, C.D. Cal.)

Summary

A criminal case summary on form CR-72, filed 06/12/20 as Document 41 in U.S.A. v. Keith Lawrence Middlebrook, Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, with the FBI as investigative agency. It records a felony offense dated March 17, 2020, first committed in Los Angeles County, under 18 U.S.C. 1343, and a complaint previously filed in 20-mj-1341 charging 18 U.S.C. 1349. The form gives the date of arrest on the complaint as 3/25/20 and records a bond posted at complaint level on May 6, 2020 in the amount of $150,000. It is signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Valerie L. Makarewicz and dated 06/12/2020.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 41 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 2
c UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE SUMMARY

. FILED
Page ID vA . DISTRICT COURT

06/12/2020

2:20-cr-00229-DSF

Case Number

U.S.A. v. Keith Lawrence Middlebrook

Indictment [_] Information

CENTRAPPASPRICT OF CALIFORNIA
— BERUTY

Defendant Number

Year of Birth 1967

Investigative agency (FBI, DEA, etc.) FBI

NOTE: All items MUST be completed. If you do not know the answer or a question is not applicable to your case, enter "N/A."

OFFENSE/VENUE

a. Offense charged as a:

[_] Class A Misdemeanor [_] Minor Offense [_] Petty Offense
[_] Class B Misdemeanor [_] Class C Misdemeanor [y] Felony
b. Date of Offense March 17, 2020

c. County in which first offense occurred

Los Angeles

d. The crimes charged are alleged to have been committed in
(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

Los Angeles [_] Ventura
Orange [_] Santa Barbara
[_] Riverside [_] San Luis Obispo
[_] San Bernardino L_] Other

Citation of Offense 18 U.S.C. 1343

e. Division in which the MAJORITY of events, acts, or omissions
giving rise to the crime or crimes charged occurred:

Western (Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura)
[_] Eastern (Riverside and San Bernardino) [_] Southern (Orange)

RELATED CASE

Has an indictment or information involving this defendant and
the same transaction or series of transactions been previously
filed and dismissed before trial?

_[¥] No [_] Yes

If "Yes," Case Number:

Pursuant to General Order 19-03, criminal cases may be related
if a previously filed indictment or information and the present
case:

a. arise out of the same conspiracy, common scheme,
transaction, series of transactions or events; or

b. involve one or more defendants in common, and would
entail substantial duplication of labor in pretrial, trial or
sentencing proceedings if heard by different judges.

Related case(s), if any (MUST MATCH NOTICE OF RELATED
CASE):

PREVIOUSLY FILED COMPLAINT/CVB CITATION
A complaint/CVB citation was previously filed on: 3/5/2020

20-mj-1341
DUTY

Charging: 18 U.S.C. 1349
The complaint/CVB citation:

is still pending

[_] was dismissed on:
PREVIOUS COUNSEL
Was defendant previously represented?
DFPD ljeoma Eke
213-894-3107

Case Number:

Assigned Judge:

IF YES, provide Name:

Phone Number:

COMPLEX CASE
Are there 8 or more defendants in the Indictment/Information?

[_] Yes* [¥].No

Will more than 12 days be required to present government's
evidence in the case-in-chief?

[_] Yes* No

*AN ORIGINAL AND 1 COPY (UNLESS ELECTRONICALLY FILED)
OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLEX CASE MUST BE FILED AT THE
TIME THE INDICTMENT IS FILED IF EITHER "YES" BOX IS
CHECKED.

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT/INFORMATION
IS THIS ANEW DEFENDANT? [_] Yes [yv] No
superseding charge (i.e., 1st, 2nd).

This is the
The superseding case was previously filed on:

Case Number

The superseded case:

' [_] is still pending before Judge/Magistrate Judge

|] was previously dismissed on

Are there 8 or more defendants in the superseding case?

[_] Yes* [|] No
Will more than 12 days be required to present government's
evidence in the case-in-chief?

[_] Yes* [_] No
Was a Notice of Complex Case filed on the Indictment or
Information?
[_] No

[_] Yes
*AN ORIGINAL AND 1 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLEX CASE
MUST BE FILED AT THE TIME THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT IS
FILED IF EITHER "YES" BOX IS CHECKED.

CR-72 (03/19)

CASE SUMMARY

Page 1 of 2
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 41 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2of2 Page ID #:205

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE SUMMARY
INTERPRETER CUSTODY STATUS
Is an interpreter required? — [_] YES NO Defendant is not in custody:

IF YES, list language and/or dialect: a. Date and time of arrest on complaint: 3/25/20; 6pm

b. Posted bond at complaint level on: May 6, 2020

in the amount of $ 150,000

OTHER c. PSA supervision? Yes [_]No
Male [_] Female d. Is on bail or release from another district:
U.S. Citizen [_] Alien

Alias Name(s) Defendant is in custody:

a. Place of incarceration: [_] State [_] Federal

This defendant is charged in: b. Name of Institution:
All counts c. If Federal, U.S. Marshals Service Registration Number:
[_] Only counts:

d.[_] Solely on this charge. Date and time of arrest:

[_] This defendant is designated as "High Risk" per
18 USC § 3146(a)(2) by the U.S. Attorney.

e. On another conviction: — ["] Yes [-] No
[| Tyuee estecO Ne as "Special Case" per IE YES: [] State C Federal CJ writ of issue
is defendant a juvenile? C] Yes No f. Awaiting trial on other charges: [7] Yes [_] No
IF YES, should matter be sealed? [_] Yes No IFYES: [7] State [[] Federal AND

Name of Court:

The area(s) of substantive law that will be involved in this case Date transferred to federal custody:

include(s):

[_] financial institution fraud [_] public corruption This person/proceeding is transferred from another district

[_] government fraud [_] tax offenses pursuanttoF.R.CrP, 20 __?l ___40
[_] environmental issues mail/wire fraud

[_] narcotics offenses [_] immigration offenses

[_] violent crimes/firearms [_] corporate fraud

[_] Other

EXCLUDABLE TIME

Determinations as to excludable time prior to filing indictment/information. EXPLAIN: See Order Extending and Excluding Time

from the Speedy Trial Act, Docket No. 22, Case No. 20-mj-1341 (uc

Date 06/12/2020

Signature of Assistant U.S. Attorney
Valerie L. Makarewicz

Print Name

CR-72 (03/19) CASE SUMMARY Page 2 of 2


File and source

File

41.pdf

Size

702,893 bytes

SHA-256

fc20c1c6f82dd9fb3d1f4313c389cb9f9d00ea319163f65f4ffbc0823d4d6e31

Our copy

41.pdf

Original

No public link identified.