A San Diego man has pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the primary criminal case in federal court involving the illegal import of potent greenhouse gases commonly utilized in refrigeration and freezers.

Federal lawmakers have banned the import of those substances, referred to as hydrofluorocarbons, because they contribute harmfully to climate change. “Their impact on global warming can be hundreds to thousands of times greater per unit mass than that of carbon dioxide,” the Coalition for climate and clean airan initiative of the United Nations Environment Programme.

Michael Hart, 58, was arrested in March for allegedly smuggling the illegal coolants across the border from Mexico on multiple occasions with out a permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In a primary of its kind, a grand jury indicted Hart for allegedly violating the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (AIM Act), which prohibits the importation of such substances with out a permit from the EPA.

RELATED: Governor Newsom signs recent laws to combat California's oil industry

Hart pleaded guilty on Tuesday to conspiracy to violate the federal Clean Air Act and the AIM Act. In a settlement, he admitted that he bought hydrofluorocarbons – that are utilized in refrigeration and air-con in addition to in constructing insulation, fire suppression systems and aerosols – in Mexico after which smuggled them across the border to sell within the United States for a profit.

“Clean air is not sold to the highest bidder,” U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath said in an announcement. “The Department of Justice will use every tool at our disposal to protect air quality and hold criminal polluters accountable.”

Assistant Attorney General Todd Kim of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division said federal prosecutors are committed to enforcing the AIM Act and other laws designed to stop environmental harm.

“Congress has made it illegal to import certain refrigerants into the United States without a permit because they have been shown to make a significantly greater contribution to climate change,” Kim said in an announcement.

According to his plea agreement, Hart advertised the illegal refrigerants on OfferUp, Facebook Marketplace and other web sites after which ordered the substances from co-conspirators in Mexico. Hart then drove to Tijuana, picked up the refrigerants and brought them across the border hidden under a tarp and tools.

The original indictment charged Hart with 13 counts of conspiracy, illegal importation, and sale of illegally imported goods. Hart is alleged to have conspired with others to smuggle cylinders of the regulated refrigerants into the United States on at the very least five occasions – once in July 2022 and 4 times in October of that yr. The indictment states he sold the illegal refrigerants seven times in September and October 2022.

As a part of his guilty plea to the conspiracy charge, prosecutors agreed to drop the opposite 12 charges. Hart agreed to pay $1,500 in restitution to cover the associated fee of disposing of the coolants. He faces a maximum of 5 years in prison, but prosecutors really helpful a lesser sentence and a $250,000 superb.

Hart's sentencing is scheduled for December.

Originally published: September 26, 2024 at 5:19 am

OAKLAND — Federal prosecutors have filed charges against a former Antioch police officer on bank fraud charges that add to an existing steroid trafficking case against him that has been pending for greater than a yr, records show.

Daniel James Harris was charged Friday with bank fraud, a federal offense that carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, however it's doubtful he'll actually get anywhere near that much time if convicted.

The indictment says Harris hatched a “material plan” to “defraud a financial institution” in February 2022, just weeks before the FBI and Contra Costa prosecutors conducted a series of raids on several former East Contra Costa law enforcement officials.

The latest charging document doesn’t say how much money Harris allegedly obtained through fraud or provide some other details. Harris was one in all 14 former Antioch and Pittsburgh law enforcement officials charged last yr as a part of a corruption investigation. Until Friday, he faced just one charge, accusing him and fellow Antioch police officer Devon Wenger of distributing steroids to others.

Ironically, the brand new case marks the start of the tip of the fees against Harris. In court documents, prosecutors said that they had reached a “proposed resolution” that will require Harris to plead guilty to no less than one federal offense to resolve each cases. Details of the resolution weren’t disclosed.

Harris has been free for the reason that charges were filed in August 2023. Other people arrested as a part of the investigation have faced much more serious charges, including obstruction of a wiretap, an try and defraud each cities by obtaining incentive bonuses through college degree fraud, and a case by which three Antioch law enforcement officials, including Wenger, are accused of conspiring to attack people in the middle of their jobs.

Wenger's lawyers have filed a lawsuit difficult the legality of a search warrant for Wenger's phone, arguing that Wenger obtained the steroids legally.

Harris is scheduled to seem in court on September 17.

Originally published: September 13, 2024 at 5:31 p.m.

By Peter Valdes-Dapena | CNN

Sometimes technology doesn't live as much as its promise. But sometimes it's not the technology that permits you to down, however the individuals who use it. An organization that gives charging stations for electric vehicles is experimenting with cutting off power to people who find themselves standing around attempting to “fill up.”

Recently, I drove a brand new Chevrolet Blazer EV from New York City to Bristol, Pennsylvania. I figured the drive to Bristol with my family would take about 90 minutes. Since I hadn't began with a full battery, the return trip would take 15 to twenty minutes longer, with a stop to present the EV some charging.

I used to be very improper.

It took us 4 hours to get home that evening, waiting in line for electric vehicle chargers. Blame it on rude charger hogs who don't respect electric vehicle etiquette. It's like waiting in your table at a restaurant and watching people chatting casually over empty plates and half-empty wine glasses.

What's improper? Electric automobile fast chargers — the massive, tall units that appear to be large appliances — are generally not designed to totally charge an electrical automobile's batteries. They're designed to quickly pump power right into a battery, allowing drivers to make a fast stop and get back on the road after about 20 minutes. They're different from the smaller and more common “slow” or “destination” chargers, as Tesla calls them, that are designed for drivers to park, plug of their automobile … and drive away for hours.

However, fast charging may be hard on automobile batteries. To protect the batteries from damage, the charging speed is significantly reduced once the batteries are greater than 80% charged. In fact, it could take as long and even longer to go from 80% charge to a totally full battery than it does to succeed in 80%. In the meantime, lines of electrical vehicles wait behind nearly full cars.

I waited behind people whose batteries were at 92%, 94%, and even 97% full, as I could see on the charging screens, and yet they stayed there. I made my very own situation worse by giving up at one location and going to a different with more chargers, but there have been much more EVs waiting there.

Given that the dearth of public charging stations deters many electric vehicle consumers, According to several surveysthat may be a big problem.

Electrify America, one among America's largest charging providers, is experimenting with an answer to the issue of charge hogs that could make driving an electrical vehicle slow and ugly. At 10 of essentially the most used electric vehicle fast-charging stations in California, Electrify America has implemented a strict cap. Once a automobile's batteries reach 85% charge, charging will mechanically stop and the motive force will probably be prompted to unplug and drive away, otherwise they will probably be charged additional “idle time fees” of 40 cents per minute for taking over the space.

This is comparable to Tesla vehicles that do that mechanically. When a Tesla automobile, truck or SUV is plugged into a very busy Supercharger station, the vehicle itself can mechanically limit charging to only 80% “to avoid congestion,” in response to Tesla's online Supercharger support website.

In this case, nonetheless, the user can still override the limit using the vehicle's touchscreen. There will probably be no approach to bypass Electrify America's limit. A driver who desires to charge to 100% at one among these stations may have to go elsewhere.

Access to chargers has been a sore spot for electric vehicle owners for years (witness the complaints on Reddit and LinkedIn), but the problem is becoming increasingly critical because whilst EV sales growth slows, the variety of EVs on the road that need charging remains to be rising.

“I think what you're seeing is that the demand for public fast-charging stations is really skyrocketing,” said Sara Rafalson, executive vice chairman of policy at EV charging company EVgo, “And I would say we've really reached an inflection point in terms of demand in the last year and a half.”

Why so many drivers use so few chargers

Electric cars are still relatively recent to most owners, and their “fueling habits” are based on what they're used to with gasoline cars, says Robert Barrosa, president of EV charging company Electrify America. People go to a gas pump to “fill up,” and lots of treat a charger the identical way. Many recent EV owners may not even remember that charging speeds at all times drop off drastically after 80%.

But what if the closest fast charging station is not less than 15 or 20 minutes away? The relative scarcity of charging stations and the massive distances between them, could make people wish to stay some time once they've found one.

“Once you’re on a charger, it’s like, ‘Oh yeah. I’m filling all the way in which,'“, said Barrosa.

Both Electrify America and EVgo said they might expand their networks quickly to, as EVgo's Rafalson put it, “get ahead of the puck” and ensure there are enough charging stations to fulfill future demand. Having enough charging stations available could help mitigate the electricity hoarding that’s currently common at charging stations.

The problem of users hogging chargers might be exacerbated by Electrify America's free charging agreements with various automakers, including Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai. If charging time costs nothing, there isn’t a financial incentive to unplug. Like Diners Order countless shrimp at Red Lobstersome EV drivers take full advantage of this, to the growing frustration of the others waiting behind them.

There could also be other legitimate explanation why a driver would wish to charge to 100% at a quick charger, Barrosa said. For example, they could be taking a protracted trip to a spot where they know chargers are few and much between. Or they could be driving an electrical vehicle with relatively short range, like a Fiat 500e or Mazda MX-30, in order that they must pack as much into it as possible. Cases like these are why Electrify America is unlikely to implement a general charging cap at charging stations near major highways, he said.

Charging firms like Electrify America have an immense amount of real-time data on charging usage, so a more nuanced approach than simply limiting at certain charging stations could be possible. Some EV charging firms have experimented with plans that charge different amounts at different times to incentivize drivers to charge their batteries at less busy times. At least for now, Electrify America leaders wish to keep things easy, Barrosa says, so drivers know what to anticipate once they arrive at a charging station.

For now, we are able to only hope that drivers of electrical cars, who don’t necessarily should replenish their tanks, will learn to be more considerate.

The-CNN-Wire
& © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery company. All rights reserved.

Originally published: August 5, 2024 at 7:21 am

No fireworks? No problem.

Some of the chicest bars in Brooklyn and Queens are clinging to the hope of catching a glimpse of the annual Macy's Fourth of July fireworks display—and charging a fairly penny for it—though the event is moving from the East River to the Hudson River for the primary time in greater than a decade.

This 12 months's West Side fireworks display will happen closer to New Jersey than Brooklyn and will be obscured by the Manhattan skyline – but that's not stopping several upscale venues from trumpeting the chance to catch a glimpse of the spectacle.

The Arlo Hotel in Williamsburg, for instance, hosts its own “Skyline Fireworks” Party with a special “DJ fireworks b2b” and starting at $55 each.

Only later within the event description does the hotel announce that the 2024 fireworks display “will be set up in the Hudson River between 14th and 34th Streets, not the East River.”

“You can't see them here,” said 32-year-old Javiera Aranba, who was spotted sunbathing on the roof of the Arlo on Wednesday. “I don't think it's right to charge people money for fireworks that you can't see. I just think it's wrong. Especially when you can see them for free by the river.”

Another Arlo guest, 31-year-old French-born and New York-based Yohann Corre, identified that the high ticket prices have in mind not only the potential viewing of fireworks, but additionally DJs and other entertainment.

“Tomorrow will be a nice party,” he said.

The Williamsburg Hotelwhich was replaced by the Arlo last September, hosted the same party last 12 months when Macy's fireworks were launched from the East River. Those tickets cost $175 for general admission.

However, not all venues are reducing ticket prices.

CODA Williamsburg Hotel Evening ticket for the soirée valued at USD 175 This 12 months it’s offering “access to the rooftop party and fireworks,” although the party's Eventbrite page warns: “Direct views from our location are not guaranteed.”

The Westlight cocktail bar on the roof of the William Vale Hotel is hosting a celebration for 111 dollars each This guarantees visitors dinner, DJ sets and a 360-degree view of the skyline – but still a small probability of fireworks.

The fireworks display – or lack thereof – will not be mentioned on the event's ticket website until users click on a drop-down menu of incessantly asked questions.

“Westlight does not host fireworks,” the FAQ states. “Please note that Macy's fireworks take place over the Hudson River.”

A spokesperson for the Macy's Fourth of July fireworks display didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment on visibility from Brooklyn.

Further north on Roosevelt Island, the Panorama Room on the roof of the Graduate Hotel is thought for its stunning views of the annual fireworks display — but a bartender there told The Post that the view is likely to be different this time.

“Last year was beautiful,” said the bartender. “It was busy, it was incredible, [but] They modified it this 12 months. I don't know if it is going to be as beautiful as last 12 months.

“If you can't see the fireworks, why should you pay? Then they should pay us,” chimed in 65-year-old Anand S., a guest on the Panorama Room, who was visiting from California.

Admission to the Panorama Room this 12 months is $25 with a dinner reservation at Resy, Baha Nikolkin, director of operations on the Graduate Hotel, told the Post — a far cry from last 12 months's general advance ticket price of $216, in keeping with an area news and events website. 6 square feet.

Independence Day is a crucial day for business at each the Panorama Room cocktail bar and the adjoining Graduate Hotel, Nikolkin said, as tourists come from out of town to see the famous fireworks display – though some may not know where the Hudson River is.

“If I were a tourist who didn't know, I would definitely feel cheated if I came here and had a limited view,” Lamar Brennan, 41, told The Post at Harriet's Rooftop in DUMBO on Wednesday.

The cocktail bar, situated on the roof of the 1 Hotel Brooklyn Bridge, is hosting its own party for $60. A disclaimer at the tip of the third party's party Ticket website Notes: “The view of the fireworks cannot be guaranteed.”

Despite this 12 months's change within the fireworks venue from the East River, where it has been held yearly since 2014, ticket sales on the Panorama Room remained largely the identical as last 12 months, Nikolkin said.

“Yes, there are some people who are disappointed that they cannot see [the fireworks]but we expect it to be completely full,” Nikolkin added.

Other bar patrons say they don't mind the limited visibility on Independence Day.

Arlo guest Zoe Goldstein, 26, said that while she wouldn’t be visiting the rooftop bar on Thursday, she felt the event was less concerning the fireworks and more an excuse to throw a celebration.

“I think it's just a Fourth of July party,” she said. “I don't think it's because of the fireworks… You'll probably see a little bit of that.”

“It also depends on how much you charge me to get here,” said Brennan, the guest at Harriet's Rooftop. “$100? Yeah, no. If I spend $15 or $10, that's a different story. I'll easily spend $10 somewhere. But $100. No way.”

“But,” Brennan added, “it's a private company. I can't blame them for how they make their money.”

Besides the East Side, the next places in NYC will not be beneficial for viewing, in keeping with the Macy's 4th of July Fireworks Site: West Street between W. Houston & Leroy Street; West Street between W. 14th & W. twenty sixth Street; West Street between W. thirty third & W. thirty fourth Street; West Street between W. fortieth & W. forty sixth Street; The High Line and The Battery.

The charges – and in some cases the convictions – against Hundreds of individuals Charges of participating within the riot on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, are resulting from be reconsidered and possibly dropped resulting from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 28, 2024. Among those charged under a broad interpretation of the obstruction of justice statute that has now been narrowed by the Supreme Court is former President Donald Trump.

In its decision of Fischer v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting obstruction of an official proceeding may not apply to 3 defendants accused of participating within the revolt on the U.S. Capitol. Although former President Donald Trump will not be a defendant within the case, Special investigator Jack Smith has charged him individually with the violation of the identical law.

As a law professor I’ll join Mr. Smith, who teaches and writes within the areas of constitutional law and federal courts, to elucidate what the court's decision means for the January 6 defendants – and for Smith's case against Trump.

Charges against Capitol rioters

According to their indictment Joseph Fischer, Edward Long And Garret Miller were present on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Prosecutors say all three men entered the Capitol through the riot and attacked cops. One of the boys, Lang, brandished a baseball bat and a stolen police shield, and one other, Miller, later called on social media for the assassination of U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office charged the three men with various crimes, including Attack on a federal official, inappropriate behavior on Capitol grounds And Obstruction of a congressional procedureThis last allegation is the topic of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Before trial, the defendants argued that the statute prosecutors had relied on to charge them with obstruction of justice applied only to tampering with evidence, to not violently disrupting a session of Congress. The district court agreed and dismissed the costs, however the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned ruling and sent the case back for trial.

The Supreme Court then agreed to listen to the case, but adjourned the hearing while it considered the dispute over the scope of the obstruction of justice law.

Definition of a collective term

In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice John Robertsthe Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the law only prohibited tampering with evidence. It then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to choose whether the defendants had violated the law in that narrow interpretation by attempting to stop Congress from obtaining and certifying the states' true electoral votes.

The court began with the text of the obstruction of justice statute. The law punishes anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other item” or “otherwise obstructs, influences, or prevents any official proceeding.” The government argued that the defendants “otherwise obstructed” the strategy of certifying the outcomes of the 2020 election in Congress.

The court rejected that argument, nevertheless, noting that the phrase “otherwise impedes” refers only to impediments that — resembling altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record, document, or object — impair the provision or integrity of evidence to be used in an official proceeding. The statutory catch-all term for “otherwise impedes” an official proceeding should be read along with the list of acts that precede it, the court explained. Otherwise, the list can be redundant.

The court also pointed to the historical background of the law. Congress, the court explained, had passed this special disability law in 2002 within the wake of the Enron accounting fraud scandalThe aim was to shut a loophole within the country's existing obstruction of justice laws, which on the time prohibited commissioning third parties to destroy incriminating evidence but stopping the destruction of the evidence oneself.

The court explained that the federal government's interpretation of the law went far beyond that purpose since it prohibited types of obstruction of evidence that Congress never intended to criminalize.

What this implies for the defendants of January 6 – and for Trump

The Supreme Court's decision doesn’t end the proceedings against the defendants within the Fischer criminal case; they’ll probably be tried for assault and disturbing the peace.

But it could end in the obstruction of justice charge being dismissed or the obstruction of justice convictions for other defendants from January 6 being overturned. According to an NPR databaseThe Federal Prosecutor's Office brought charges against no less than 250 other defendants for obstructing an official proceeding; 128 were convicted.

The ruling could also undermine special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump, which Smith charged with obstruction under the identical lawIf that's the case survives a separate pending appeal before the Supreme Courtthe previous president will likely seek to have these charges dismissed.

Trump may not succeed, nevertheless, because the obstruction of justice charge is predicated partially on the allegation that he organized electoral lists to substantiate false election results to CongressThis may compromise the integrity of the evidence utilized in the certification process.

And obstruction of justice will not be the one charge the previous president faces. But the ruling could limit the case and make it tougher for the special counsel to present evidence of the Jan. 6 violence to the jury. Under this recent ruling, that violence alone couldn’t qualify as obstruction of justice.

The Fischer case also shows how judges can sometimes, especially in high-stakes cases, use methods of legal reasoning that they’re quick to criticize in other contexts. In the opinion, members of the Supreme Court's conservative majority pointed to the history of the obstruction of justice law – evidence that conservative jurists like the late Justice Antonin Scalia often described as unreliable.

The Supreme Court's decision in Fischer could have profound implications for the special counsel's historic prosecution of former President Trump.

But even when that will not be the case, the report still sheds essential light on the court's internal workings and the federal government's power to guard the integrity of its proceedings.

OAKLAND — The 77-year-old homeowner arrested earlier this week for the fatal shooting of a suspected burglar in his East Oakland home has apparently been released from jail without facing charges within the murder, Alameda County jail records show.

The homeowner had been held without bail since Tuesday morning on suspicion of murder after he used a crowbar and an imitation gun to kill one in every of three burglars who tried to interrupt into his home, in line with Oakland police. He was released on Thursday, when Alameda County prosecutors had a deadline to file charges within the case. The Santa Rita jail's practice just isn’t to carry suspects who haven’t yet been formally charged for greater than two days.

Although the jail's online records system indicated the homeowner was scheduled to look in court Thursday morning, that hearing never took place because no charges were filed within the case. He was not listed in jail logs as of Friday morning, nor did he appear within the county's criminal court records.

On Thursday afternoon, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office said in an announcement that “this case remains under investigation by law enforcement,” referring to the Oakland Police Department.

The lack of charges on this case got here as little surprise to several Bay Area legal experts this week. They said state law often protects homeowners from prosecution after they open fire on burglars of their home. Some also identified that prosecutors must assume they will prove the case beyond an inexpensive doubt when filing charges, moderately than counting on police standards that require probable cause for arrest.

“The prosecution is taking due care to make sure they get this case right one way or the other,” said Steve Clark, a Bay Area attorney and legal expert. “And I think a quick decision one way or the other would be a mistake before all the evidence has been reviewed.”

Oakland police didn’t immediately reply to a message searching for comment Friday.

Oakland police were called shortly before 6 p.m. Monday after someone observed two men and a lady — at the least one in every of whom was armed with a crowbar — breaking into the person's home on the corner of 98th Avenue and Burr Street, authorities said. The burglars were confronted by the homeowner after at the least one in every of them tried to climb over a back fence, Deputy Police Chief Frederick Shavies said.

When police arrived, the homeowner pointed a gun at an individual while a person, believed to be in his 40s, lay wounded just contained in the fence, authorities said. Paramedics later pronounced him dead. His name was not released.

A 3rd suspected burglar, a 31-year-old man, fled when the homeowner opened fire but was caught by police a couple of blocks away, in line with court records. He has since been charged with first-degree burglary and his bail was set at $50,000. Jail records showed he was still in custody Friday morning.

At a press conference on Wednesday, Shavies attributed the homeowner's arrest primarily to the incontrovertible fact that he “did not make any statements” when questioned by the homicide squad.

“If 'A' shoots 'B' without explanation, we can only go with what we have without any statement,” said Shavies. “All we know is that a person died.”

The homeowner's arrest caused a stir amongst legal experts throughout the Bay Area.

Daniel Horowitz, a criminal defense attorney from Lafayette, denounced the police department's statement. He and other Bay Area attorneys stressed that police must “lay out the facts” about why someone committed a criminal offense and never allow someone to fill within the gaps by remaining silent.

“It's really unbelievable to arrest someone just because someone is lying dead in your yard,” Horowitz said. “If someone is simply on your property and you have a gun and you shoot them, that's not enough to arrest them. That's just not enough.”

The case represents one other test of California's Castle Doctrine, which principally gives homeowners the power to guard their lives or property from anyone searching for to interrupt in or cause damage. Essentially, Horowitz said, if the homeowner “reasonably believed his life was in danger, he had the right to shoot and kill.”

Still, Clark stressed that such murder cases are “very fact-based investigations” and that quite a few other aspects can come into play, including whether or not the burglar was in the home and whether he was fleeing on the time of the shooting.

Shavies said Wednesday that investigators were still waiting for autopsy results to find out where the person was shot. A call from this news organization to the Alameda County coroner's office was not immediately returned Thursday.