Skip to main content

Mexican National Receives 70-Month Prison Sentence for Narcotics Trafficking Conviction

ALBUQUERQUE—Earlier today in federal court in Albuquerque, Erik Alonzo-Martinez, 28, was sentenced to a 70-month term of imprisonment for his narcotics trafficking conviction. Alonzo-Martinez, a citizen of Mexico, will be deported after he completes his prison sentence.

United States Attorney Kenneth J. Gonzales said that Alonzo-Martinez and his two co-defendants, Jorge Lozoya, 26 and Alejandro Alvarado-Aleman, 27, were arrested as a result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and New Mexico State Police (NMSP) during which an undercover NMSP officer purchased cocaine and cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, from Alonzo-Martinez and his co-defendants.

The three defendants were arrested on narcotics trafficking offenses on September 17, 2009 and have been in federal custody since that time. They were indicted in a five-count indictment on October 8, 2009 charging them as follows: Count 1 charged all three men with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine; Counts 2 and 3 charged Alonzo-Martinez and Lozoya with distributing more than five grams of cocaine base on August 21, 2009 and September 3, 2009, respectively; and Counts 4 and 5 charged all three men with possession of more than five grams of cocaine base and cocaine with intent to distribute.

Alonzo-Martinez entered a guilty plea to Counts 1, 2, and 3 on October 18, 2010 under a plea agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office. In his plea agreement, Alonzo-Martinez admitted selling two ounces of cocaine and two ounces of crack cocaine to an undercover officer in exchange for $4,000 on August 21, 2009 and September 3, 2009. Alonzo-Martinez also admitted that when he and his co-defendants were arrested on September 17, 2009, they were en route to deliver another two ounces of cocaine and two ounces of cocaine base to the undercover officer. The court dismissed Counts 4 and 5 of the indictment after sentencing Alonzo-Martinez.

Co-defendant Alvarado-Aleman pled guilty to Counts 4 and 5 on August 2, 2010, and was sentenced to a 30-month term of imprisonment on February 3, 2011. Co-defendant Lozoya pled guilty to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment on August 11, 2010, and was sentenced to a 37-month term of imprisonment on February 28, 2011. Alvarado-Aleman and Lozoya are both citizens of Mexico and each will be deported when he completes his prison sentence.

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 ...