Skip to main content

Former Sand and Gravel Subcontractor Sentenced to 5 Years in Prison After Conspiracy and Bribery Conviction in Connection with a Levee Reconstruction Project

WASHINGTON — A former sand and gravel subcontractor was sentenced today to serve five years in prison and to pay a $5,000 criminal fine by U.S. District Judge Carl J. Barbier after being convicted by a federal jury of conspiracy and bribery in connection with a $16 million hurricane protection project for the reconstruction a New Orleans levee, the Department of Justice announced today. The project involved the Lake Cataouatche Levee, which is south of New Orleans.

Durwanda Elizabeth Morgan Heinrich was found guilty on April 1, 2009, of conspiracy and bribery. The conduct centered on Heinrich’s offer to pay Kern Carver Bernard Wilson and Raul Miranda, former contract employees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in exchange for their attempt to steer a dirt, sand and gravel subcontract on the levee project to her. Heinrich planned to use part of the proceeds from the subcontract to pay the bribes. A jury found both Heinrich and Wilson guilty in the charged conspiracy and bribery. The court sentenced Wilson on Aug. 5, 2009, to serve 70 months in jail and to pay a $15,000 criminal fine. Miranda pleaded guilty on Sept. 12, 2007, to agreeing to accept the bribe and awaits sentencing.

This sentencing is the result of an ongoing investigation of fraud in the procurement of levee reconstruction contracts let by the Corps of Engineers. The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s Dallas Field Office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Vicksburg Fraud Resident Agency of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command and the Department of Defense’s Criminal Investigative Service through the Disaster Fraud Task Force.

In September 2005, the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force, now the Disaster Fraud Task Force, was created to deter, investigate and prosecute disaster-related federal crimes. To date, the Task Force has charged 1301 defendants in 1216 cases.

Anyone with information concerning anticompetitive conduct, fraud or other allegations of illegal activity concerning hurricane-related projects is urged to call the Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721, the Antitrust Division’s Dallas Field Office at 214-661-8600, or the Division’s Atlanta Field Office at 404-331-7100.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more