State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal food stamp program for low-income individuals. These benefits are redeemable for eligible food items at authorized grocery stores, gas stations and convenience stores. For businesses that accept these benefits, they’re often a significant source of revenue.
However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, which administers these benefits, takes a close look at businesses with suspicious EBT (electronic benefits transfer) activity. If the agency discovers a violation of the federal rules and regulations governing acceptance of SNAP benefits, it can impose harsh consequences, including temporary or permanent disqualification on top of steep civil monetary fines.
The result? A significant decrease in revenues, which could even put you out of business.
Violations of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program commonly take the form of food stamp trafficking. This occurs when a store takes EBT benefits for noneligible items such as cigarettes, alcohol, household goods or cosmetics. Only retail food items are eligible for SNAP benefits. Pre-prepared hot foods – such as premade, ready-to-eat hot dogs or burgers – aren’t eligible under federal SNAP regulations.
Trafficking also covers receipt of benefits in exchange for cash, including cash change.
These activities happen for numerous reasons. Unscrupulous employees may be trying to make a buck from buying and selling EBT benefits. But many times, employees simply don’t know the rules. Proper training and a thorough compliance policy can prevent these kinds of unknowing violations.
There are many ways for businesses to end up on the USDA’s enforcement radar. For example:
SNAP violation cases often begin with a letter from the U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging that your store is in violation of the law against food stamp trafficking, having committed a SNAP violation. This letter is known as a “charge letter,” sent by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services agents, outlining the allegations against you.
It’s important to take action as soon as possible after receiving this letter. You may have a strong defense. By enlisting a lawyer who is familiar with these actions, you can protect your business, potentially averting or diminishing the harsh penalties for an infraction.
Swift and strategic action is essential for responding to USDA charge letters. You must respond within 10 days of the date that you received the letter. Otherwise, the USDA’s decision to disqualify you for EBT transactions stands.
At Roberts Marcilliat & Mills PLLC, we represent clients facing EBT disqualification in all phases. Our lawyers can advise you and help establish a compliance program to avoid trouble in the first place. But if you are already facing formal accusations of food stamp trafficking, whether or not you have a compliance program in place, we will answer the USDA’s charge letter, help you prepare a strong defense, challenge the imposition of any monetary penalty (or argue for a reduced penalty), and file any necessary appeals.
The process for challenging SNAP disqualification generally follows three steps:
In many SNAP violation cases, we can resolve the matter at step one, hopefully avoiding the most serious penalties. Some are resolved at steps two and three, and fewer at step four. At any rate, knowledgeable legal representation can mean the difference between a successful and not-so-successful outcome.
At Roberts Marcilliat & Mills PLLC, we help convenience stores, gas stations, grocery stores, and other authorized SNAP retailers across the country. Our lawyers have a wealth of experience representing clients before federal government agencies and in federal court. We’ve helped prominent businesses overcome USDA charges for food stamp trafficking and other SNAP violations. With a tireless and determined approach, we can help you:
Additionally, our attorneys can help you put a compliance plan into place to reduce the risk of costly SNAP violations down the road.
State v. B.S.: Not Guilty Verdict in First Degree Murder Case.
In this case, our client was charged with First Degree Murder in connection with a “drive-by” shooting that occurred in Charlotte, NC. The State’s evidence included GPS ankle monitoring data linking our client was at the scene of the crime and evidence that our client confessed to an inmate while in jail. Nonetheless, we convinced a jury to unanimously find our client Not Guilty. He was released from jail the same day.
State v. S.G.: First Degree Murder Charge Dismissed.
Our client was charged with First Degree for the shooting death related to alleged breaking and entering. The State’s evidence included a co-defendant alleging that our client was the shooter. After conducting a thorough investigation with the use of a private investigator, we persuaded the State to dismiss entirely the case against our client.
State v. B.D.: First Degree Murder Charged Dismissed.
After conducting an investigation and communicating with the prosecutor about the facts and circumstances indicating that our client acted in self-defense, the case was dismissed and deemed a justifiable homicide.
State v. I.R.: Reduction from First Degree Murder to Involuntary Manslaughter and Concealment of Death.
Our client was charged with the First Degree Murder of a young lady by drug overdose. After investigating the decedent’s background and hiring a preeminent expert toxicologist to fight the State’s theory of death, we were able to negotiate this case down from Life in prison to 5 years in prison, with credit for time served.
State v. J.G.:
Our client was charged with First Degree Murder related to a “drug deal gone bad.” After engaging the services of a private investigator and noting issues with the State’s case, we were able to negotiate a plea for our client that avoided a Life sentence and required him to serve only 12 years.
State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
State v. B.S. – First Degree Murder
State v. E.D. – Identity Theft
State v. J.A. – First Degree Rape
Each case is different and must be evaluated on its individual facts. We work hard to assess each case individually. Prior results do not guarantee any future outcome.
Fields marked with an * are required
Call 919-838-6643 to schedule a free initial consultation. Offices open weekdays 8am – 7pm, Saturdays 9am – 5pm
*AV®, AV Preeminent®, Martindale-Hubbell Distinguished and Martindale-Hubbell Notable are certification marks used under license in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell® is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ fall into two categories — legal ability and general ethical standards.
© 2023 Roberts Marcilliat & Mills PLLC. All Rights Reserved.