Skip to main content

2 more convicted for attempting to smuggle 652 assault rifle magazines to Mexico

LAREDO, Texas – Two Mexican nationals pleaded guilty Thursday to attempting to illegally smuggle 652 assault rifle magazines into Mexico, announced U.S. Attorney Kenneth Magidson, Southern District of Texas. The investigation for this case is being led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Julio Cesar Flores-Martinez, 46, and Francisco Padilla-Perez, 41, both Mexican nationals, pleaded guilty July 19 before U.S. District Judge Diana Saldana.

According to court documents, on April 19, HSI obtained information that a person, believed to be a Mexican firearms buyer, was trying to obtain high-capacity AK-47 rifle magazines from the United States. Undercover special agents posed as firearm magazine suppliers and contacted the buyer, later identified as Padilla-Perez, who requested 650 high-capacity AK-47 rifle magazines. Padilla-Perez told the special agents he would pay $19,500 cash for the rifle magazines. He then instructed special agents to deliver the magazines to a Mexican truck driver from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, who would attempt to smuggle them into Mexico via one of the international bridges in Laredo, Texas. Flores-Martinez was the truck driver.

Padilla-Perez and the undercover special agents met with Flores-Martinez. Flores-Martinez received nine black suitcases containing 652 high capacity AK-47 rifle magazines and hid them in the cab of his truck while Padilla-Perez observed from nearby. After Flores-Martinez finished loading, Padilla-Perez then handed the special agents a white plastic bag containing $19,500 in cash.

Flores-Martinez drove to the World Trade Bridge where U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers recovered the 652 high-capacity rifle magazines. The magazines are made for 7.62x39mm ammunition and designed for use with AK-47-type assault rifles. Each magazine is designed to hold 30 rounds of the rifle ammunition.

Flores-Martinez and Padilla-Perez have been in custody since their arrest, where they will remain pending sentencing at a date to be determined in the near future. They each face sentences up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

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 ...