Skip to main content

Seventeen Pee Dee Drug Suppliers Plead Guilty in Federal Court

COLUMBIA, SC—United States Attorney W. Walter Walkins announced today that 17 drug suppliers from the Pee Dee region of South Carolina pled guilty to their involvement in a drug conspiracy spanning the past decade and involving more than one hundred of kilograms of powder cocaine and crack cocaine. The group began entering guilty pleas last month, and the last plea was entered late last week.

Based upon their guilty pleas, the following men face mandatory minimum sentences of 20 years' imprisonment with a maximum possible penalty of life:

* From Florence: NICHOLES KELLY CAIN, age 29; QUENTIN DAVID MORRIS, age 27; ANDRE LAVELLE WILLIAMS, age 34; SCOTTY BRIAN ANDERSON, age 27; LARRY MARTIN CAIN, age 37; MARCUS ALLEN MCCALL, age 22; DAREL TAREL MOUZON, age 22; and BRANDON LAFON ROBINSON, age 26.
* From Hartsville: DELANTE RONZELL BYRD, age 37; and BRIAN DEWAYNE BROWN, age 36.
* From Darlington: RODNEY BUSH, age 35; TAYRON FRANKLIN HINES, age 25; and VICTOR V. JAMES, age 34.

The remaining four defendants face sentences of 10 years' to life imprisonment: DARRYL DEMETRIA BOSTIC, age 35; ALLEN VALDOSTER FLEMING, age 20; and ROTRELIS LERREL BRUCE, age 25, all of Florence; and ROY DAVIS DRAUGHN, age 26, of Hemingway.

Evidence in the case consisted of undercover drug buys, seizures of drugs and money, and the testimony of other cooperating federal defendants, including gang members from Florence and Darlington counties who were supplied by the group. Assistant United States Attorney Rose Mary Parham, who is prosecuting the case, stated that after the men were arrested, state and federal agencies noted a dramatic decrease in the cocaine supply in Florence and Darlington Counties. According to Parham, “The case is yet another example of state and federal law enforcement agencies working together to have a tremendous impact on our community.”

The case was investigated by the Florence County Sheriff’s Office, the Florence Police Department, the Darlington County Sheriff’s Office, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Marshal’s Service.

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...