Skip to main content

TDCJ Guard Arrested on Federal Charges

HOUSTON—Alejandro Smith, 21, has been arrested following the filing of a criminal complaint alleging he knowingly and intentionally conspired to possess with heroin, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today. Smith, who was arrested yesterday, is a guard with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Institutional Division.

According to the complaint, in May 2011, FBI and Texas Rangers obtained information from a confidential source that Smith, a TDCJ Institutional Division guard at the Eastham Unit, was providing contraband to prisoners in the unit. In order to corroborate the information received, a sting operation was initiated that involved the use of a law enforcement undercover officer.

On June 1, 2011, a meeting was arranged in which the undercover officer was present when Smith picked up narcotics at a Target store parking lot, in Huntsville, Texas. Law enforcement personnel from the FBI, Texas Rangers, Walker County Sheriff’s Office, Huntsville Police Department, and the TDCJ Institutional Division - Office of Inspector General were involved in physical surveillance of the meeting, as well asjavascript:void(0) a Texas Department of Public Safety air surveillance team. According to the complaint, Smith was observed getting out of his vehicle and entering the passenger side compartment of the undercover vehicle. Once inside the truck, Smith was allegedly given a purple duffle bag containing a kilogram of heroin. Smith was arrested after he retrieved the bag and exited the undercover vehicle.

Smith is expected to appear in federal court in Houston on Friday, June 3, 2011, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Milloy. The statutory punishment range for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute heroin is no less than five and up to 40 years in federal prison and a $5 million fine.

The investigation leading to the charges was conducted by the FBI and Texas Rangers with the assistance of the aforementioned agencies.

A criminal complaint is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence.

A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law.

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 ...