Sentence And Guilty Plea In Cases Involving Theft Of Military Equipment Returned From Iraq And Afghanistan
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — One defendant pleaded guilty and another was sentenced today in two related cases involving the theft of military equipment that was being inventoried at the U.S. Army base in Herlong, California, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced.
Tony Herrin, 36, of Reno, Nevada, pleaded guilty today to theft of government property, and Devon Biggs, 38, formerly of Reno, Nevada, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller to 16 months in prison and restitution of $200,000 for the theft of government property.
According to court documents, Herrin and Biggs worked as civilian employees at the Sierra Army Depot (SIAD) in Herlong. As part of their job responsibilities, Biggs and Herrin received, catalogued, and inventoried military equipment returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Biggs and Herrin worked in the same building, and the two stole numerous items of sophisticated military equipment. Specifically, Herrin played a role in stealing 10 Taser devices, three Vectronix systems used to detect targets (total value $221,787), six military grade flashlights (total value $11,267), and 25 thermal imaging sights. The total value of all these items is approximately $411,000.
Biggs also stole numerous items of sensitive military equipment: machine gun components, night vision goggles, laser GHOST Illumination technology, and low-light video recording equipment.
These cases are the product of investigations by the Law Enforcement Division of the United States Army, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorneys Jean Hobler and Christiaan Highsmith are prosecuting the cases.Herrin is scheduled to be sentenced by United States District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on May 27, 2015. Herrin faces a maximum statutory penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The actual sentence, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.