Gilroy Man Sentenced to 12 Years for Armed Bank Robbery Robbed Nearly $400,000 from 11 Banks in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties

SAN JOSE, CA—A Gilroy man was sentenced today to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay $360,418 in restitution for multiple armed bank robberies, United States Attorney Joseph P. Russoniello announced.

Peter Franklin Klein, 50, of Gilroy, Calif., pleading guilty on Jan. 11, 2010, to 11 counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113. Klein admitted that between December, 2007, and March, 2009, he robbed by force nearly $400,000 from banks in California’s Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties.

Klein was arrested by the Gilroy Police Department on March 27, 2009, immediately after his armed robbery of the Chase Bank in Gilroy. He has remained in custody since that time and will begin serving his sentence immediately.

The sentence was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte. Judge Whyte also sentenced the defendant to a five-year period of supervised release.

Daniel Kaleba is the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case with the assistance of Susan Kreider. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Further Information:

Case # CR 09-00453 RMW

A copy of this press release may be found on the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s website at www.usdoj.gov/usao/can.

Electronic court filings and further procedural and docket information are available at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.

Judges’ calendars with schedules for upcoming court hearings can be viewed on the court’s website at www.cand.uscourts.gov.

All press inquiries to the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be directed to Jack Gillund at (415) 436-6599 or by e-mail at Jack.Gillund@usdoj.gov.

Comments

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 ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog