Kevin Underwood Pleads Guilty to Racketeering Charges

WASHINGTON - A resident of Pittsburgh pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to conspiring to conduct a racketeering enterprise, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney David J. Hickton of the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Kevin Underwood, 29, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy before Senior U.S. District Judge Gustave Diamond in Pittsburgh. According to the guilty plea, Underwood participated in an enterprise, the activities of which affected interstate and foreign commerce, through a pattern of racketeering activity. The enterprise’s activities included multiple acts involving robbery, attempted murder, distribution of controlled substances including cocaine, heroin and crack cocaine, and acts of obstruction of justice and intimidation. Underwood is one of 26 defendants charged in February 2010 with being members of, and conducting racketeering activity through, a criminal organization known as the Brighton Place/Northview Heights Crips street gang that operated on the north side of Pittsburgh.

Underwood is scheduled to be sentenced on July 21, 2011, at 10 a.m. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Charles A. Eberle and Troy Rivetti of the Western District of Pennsylvania and Trial Attorney Kevin Rosenberg of the Criminal Division’s Gang Unit.

The case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the City of Pittsburgh Police Department; the Allegheny County, Penn., Police Department; and the Allegheny County Sheriff's Office.

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