Brookfield Home Where Brittany Tee Lived Listed for Sale

BROOKFIELD – Over three years ago, on Jan. 10, 2023, 35-year-old Brittany Tee left her home in Brookfield and has not been seen since.

The home she left—located at 16 Main St.—is now listed for sale. The four-bedroom, two-bath farmhouse sits on 87 acres and is priced at $749,000.

According to reports, Tee left the house on foot and headed west. Her family reported her missing two days later, on Jan. 12, 2023, at the Massachusetts State Police barracks in Brookfield.

Tee had been living at the home with her boyfriend, whom she had been dating for about six months.

She is described as 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighing approximately 120 pounds. Anyone with information about her whereabouts is asked to call the tip line at 508-453-7589.

For more on the case, listen to the Unsolved: Worcester podcast episode, “The Disappearance of Brittany Tee“.

20-Year-Old Woman Arraigned for Fatal Crash in Barre

WORCESTER – A local woman appeared before a Worcester Superior Court judge on Thursday, April 30, for arraignment on charges related to a fatal single-vehicle crash in December.

Faith O’Rourke, 20, of North Brookfield, faces charges of:

• Involuntary manslaughter (2 counts);
• Manslaughter by motor vehicle;
• Motor vehicle homicide by reckless operation (2 counts);
• Motor vehicle homicide by operating under the influence and reckless operation (2 counts);
• Operating under the influence; and
• Negligent operation of a motor vehicle.

According to the Worcester County District Attorney’s office, O’Rourke drove a BMW on Dec. 26, 2025, when the vehicle exited the roadway on Hubbardston Road in Barre. Both Connor Post, 20, and Michael Publicover, 19, died in the crash.

The judge set bail at $5,000 with conditions that O’Rourke have no contact with the families of Post and Publicover, or contact with any witness in the case.

The Worcester County District Attorney’s office says the crash remains under investigation.

U.S. Attorney Announces Keeping Kids Safe Online Webinar

BOSTON – The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts will hold a virtual webinar on Thursday, May 7, focussed on keeping kids safe online.

Topics during the online session will include social media, gaming, sextortion, extremist threats and the rise of generative artificial intelligence.

Subject matter experts from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Homeland Security Investigations, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will make presentations during the session. There will also be a live question-and-answer session and additional resources for further learning.

The Keeping Kids Safe and Secure Online webinar begins at 6:30 PM on May 7. Registration is required to attend. Sign up here.

The Circus Comes to Worcester City Hall

The circus of the specialized stretch code (building code) returned to the city council on Tuesday, April 28. There were confrontations, accusations, and more drama. See all the good clips here.

Free Medical Services Program Launches in Worcester on May 4

WORCESTER – A free medical clinic in Worcester, dedicated to serving uninsured and underinsured residents, will hold a public dedication ceremony at 4 PM on Monday, May 4, at the First Unitarian Church at 90 Main St.

The Worcester Evening Free Medical Clinic Program (WEFMSP), part of the Worcester Free Care Collaborative (WFCC), will dedicate the Hart-Wood Free Medical Program location, named after founders Dr. Paul Hart and Rev. Barry Wood. The program, formerly at the Epworth United Methodist Church, now operates within 6,000 sq. ft., over 50 percent more than its previous location.

“This move is an important step forward for our patients and our volunteers,” said Dr. David Runyan, WFCC president and WEFMSP chief operating officer. “As demand for free care rises, we need a space that supports efficient operations, improves the patient experience, and allows us to care for more people with dignity.”

The WFCC operates seven free medical programs across Worcester and Shrewsbury. The organization says over 300 volunteers provided care to over 7,000 patients in 2025.

Hart-Wood and the WFCC’s other programs provide services that include physical exams, sick visits, vaccinations, lab work, specialty care, and more.

The WFFC program locations include:

• Hart-Wood Free Medical Program – First Unitarian Church, 90 Main St. – Mondays 6 PM to 8 PM
• Wesley Eye Program – Wesley United Methodist Church, 114 Main St. – Mondays 6 PM to 7:45 PM
• St. Anne’s Free Medical Program – St. Anne’s Parish. 130 Boston Turnpike – Tuesdays 6 PM to 8 PM
• Free Health Stop – India Society of Worcester, 152 Main St., Shrewsbury – Wednesdays 6 PM to 8 PM
• St. Peter’s Free Medical Program – St. Peter’s Catholic Church, 929 Main St. – Thursdays 6 PM to 8 PM
• Worcester Islamic Center Social Services – Worcester Islamic Center, 248 East Mountain Rd. – Thursdays 6 PM to 8 PM
• Akwaaba Free Medical Program – New England Ghanaian Seventh-day Adventist Church, 67 Vernon St. – Thusdays 6 PM to 8 PM

Learn more about any of these programs at the WFFC website.

Worcester Public Library Awarded 500 Chromebooks

WORCESTER – The Worcester Public Library (WPL) announced at an event at its main branch on Wednesday, April 29, that the Massachusetts Broadband Institute awarded the library 500 Chromebooks and laptops.

The event also recognized eight additional organizations in Worcester that were awarded devices through the program.

Residents and students enrolled in a college or university in Worcester are eligible to apply for a device. Apply here. Applications are accepted through May 15.

“We know that access to technology is no longer a luxury, it’s a necessity,” said Jason Homer, Executive Director of the Worcester Public Library. “This incredible investment allows us to meet people where they are, providing the tools they need to learn, work, and thrive.

The WPL will also partner with Worcester RISE for Health, Literacy Volunteers of Greater Worcester, and Genesis Club, Inc to provide them 100 devices for use within their facilities.

The MBI Connected and Online Program launched in 2025. The $28.5 million statewide initiative will distribute 35,000 laptops, tablets, and other devices across the state

State Ends Worcester’s Pause on Building Electrification

WORCESTER – City Manager Eric Batista will recommend that the City Council file an item which sought to pause the city’s adoption of the specialized stretch code, formally named the Municipal Opt-in Specialized Energy Code. Filing an item is ending the process of consideration of an item before the council.

Batista announced his recommendation on Monday night.

Following further discussion with state officials, the municipality is no longer seeking a pause to the specialized stretch code. No action can be taken until three years after the effective date of the policy. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/bSqAWwIYpr

— CM-Batista (@CM_Batista) April 27, 2026

Batista and Worcester Chief Development Officer Peter Dunn recommended the pause, telling councilors that developers say the specialized building codes force increased costs on housing projects and can make projects financially unviable.

The council appeared poised to vote to pause the requirements at its last meeting on April 14 until Councilor Khrystian King held the item, delaying action on it until the council’s next meeting. King also requested reports from Batista’s administration on the effects of the code on building costs, utility costs, and rental rates.

Nothing in state law provides for a municipality to “pause” the code requirements once it has taken the option to opt-in. It can rescind the requirements and opt-out after adoption.

The law that created the opt-in specialized code program and associated regulations do not specifically prescribe a time frame for municipalities to rescind its opt-in. The law only requires that rescinding the opt-in occur “in the manner prescribed by law.”

State officials and the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) interpret that manner as being alongside the three-year cycles which the state updates building codes and regulations.

The Worcester City Council voted to adopt the specialized stretch code in September 2023. It went into effect on July 1, 2024. According to the interpretation of the law by state officials, Worcester may not opt-out until July 1, 2027.

State law created the ability for municipalities to opt-in to the specialized code in the Climate Act of 2021 (formally An Act Creating a Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy). The law includes provisions requiring the DOER to develop high-performance building standards to help the state reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Among the regulations within the specialized stretch code is a provision that requires new buildings with oil or gas heating to be pre-wired for the electrification of heating and appliances.

Worcester Council Holds Fewest Meetings in 20 Years in 2025

This is the second part in a series that will look at actions taken by some councilors over recent years that, when viewed collectively, display a disturbing downward spiral towards a council that serves the interests of its members, not of city residents.

The introductory piece of the series, The City Council Circles the Drain, looks at a Worcester City Council resolution supporting Worcester Police Department actions in several recent cases. In isolation, the resolution is harmless. When viewed in the context of the behavior of the majority faction within the council, the resolution tells a different story.

This piece looks at the near-total elimination of the ability of residents to formally put issues before their local elected legislature and the events from October 2024 through January 2025, which some councilors cited as the reason for eliminating that ability.

The Worcester City Council has become for, of, and by the controlling majority of councilors.

Coming to Work

A controversial decision by then-Councilor At-Large Thu Nguyen to decline to participate in meetings of the city council or its subcommittees after attending the Feb. 11, 2025 meeting led to many discussions across the city and in local media. Nguyen did not attend another meeting through the expiration of their term at the end of 2025. Nguyen continued taking part in meetings with the city manager, including budget meetings.

Nguyen cited a toxic council culture, including accusing another councilor of using a slur for trans and non-binary individuals in front of other city employees, as the cause for ending participation in meetings. Nguyen is nonbinary.

Nguyen’s absenteeism received significant criticism from some councilors and residents. Calls for Nguyen’s resignation were ignored.

The narrative, “you have to show up to work” or similar derivatives, stuck for the rest of the term through the November 2025 election.

I have no interest in trying to create an equivalence between not showing up to meetings at all and having fewer meetings, but the irony is inescapable. While outrage at Nguyen persisted, it did so in the third straight year of the fewest city council meetings held since 2007.

City Council Meetings Down Nearly 25%

Since the beginning of 2025, some councilors have justified the nearly complete prohibition on resident petitions accepted by the council as a product of the “important city business” the council must conduct.

The sharp reduction in the number of city council meetings disputes this rhetoric.

The city’s website currently shows the full city council schedule back to 2007. In that year, the council met 41 times, as it did in 2009. Prior to 2023, the fewest number of council meetings, 35, occurred in 2013 and 2019.

After holding 39 meetings in 2022, the council met just 32 times in 2023. In both 2024 and 2025, the council met just 31 times.

From its high of 41 meetings in a year, the 31 meetings represent a 24.4 percent decline. The 31 meetings represent a decline of 11.4 percent from the pre-2023 low of 35 meetings.

City Council Meetings by Year

Rhetoric inside the city council has also included a desire to shorten its meetings. Councilor Bergman has been most vocal about meeting length.

With this narrative ongoing, the scheduling of committee meetings tells a different story.

Committee Meeting Scheduling

The standing committee on public safety, led by Councilor At-Large Kate Toomey, has long met on Tuesdays at 5 PM, with the city council meeting scheduled that same day for 6:30 PM. Councilor Bergman serves as a member of this committee, along with Councilor Tony Economou.

When then-District 3 Councilor George Russel led that Standing Committee on Public Works in 2025, five of its 11 meetings took place on a Tuesday at 5 PM. The others took place on another day.

This year, the public works committee met twice thus far. Weather caused the cancellation of its February meeting. Now led by Councilor Economou, the committee met on Jan. 27 and March 24. Its next meeting is scheduled for April 28, which are all Tuesdays that a scheduled city council meeting opens at 6:30 PM.

The standing committee on municipal operations met seven times in 2025, with Councilor Bergman as the chairperson. Only its first two meetings were held at 5 PM on the day of a city council meeting. With Councilor At-Large Satya Mitra as its chairperson in 2026, that committee has met twice, both at 5 PM on the day of a council meeting.

The full city-council meetings can run long. They can also run quite short. Despite its low meeting total in 2025, it had two meetings less than one hour, and it held another meeting with just one topic on its agenda: the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) report on the Worcester Police Department.

The council voted to have five special meetings on the DOJ report. It only held that single meeting in place of a regular meeting.

While some councilors complain about the public speaking portion of the meetings and have discussed further limitations on it, the cost in outrage from residents if they shut it down isn’t worth it. They can handle resident comments as long as they control the topics open to discussion.

There is plenty of time for the consideration of resident petitions by the Worcester City Council. Its elected members just have to “show up to work.” Having more meetings would shorten them and leave plenty of time to end the abomination of shutting out residents.

In reality, meeting length has nothing to do with it. It also has nothing to do with international issues or what is “within the purview” of the city council.

As I wrote previously, from 2007 until prior to the resident petition for a resolution on a ceasefire in the War in Gaza, the council has taken up at least 11 items outside its purview and related to international matters, six of those since 2020. Councilors brought 10 of those 11 items, with just one brought by a resident.

What the majority of the city council can not tolerate is being forced to speak to and vote on questions that aren’t in their political interests.

The Right To Petition Your Government

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That last bit we don’t talk about as much as the rest.

To be clear, petitioning the government for redress does not explicitly mean to petition your local legislative body. However, in Worcester, we could do that for years. Of course, there were limits and restrictions, but they were quite relaxed.

The council continues to accept petitions for matters like parking (ex. adding/removing handicapped parking spaces, resident parking permit restrictions), traffic signals, sidewalk repair, zoning changes, and others.

Anything beyond those or similar items is no longer allowed. Here are some items the city council previously took up resident petitions for:

• request City Manager appropriate $1,000,000.00 to the Worcester Public Library to expand books in the business section, world language books, classrooms, charging stations, recording studios and video game stations to utilize the benefits of the library. (April 10, 2018)
• request City of Worcester to adopt a policy of body camera use by the Worcester Police Department (April 10, 2018)
• request the city’s Health Department and Police Department work in unison with the State Police Forensics Lab and teaching labs to collect and bank DNA from violent criminal assaults (Aug. 21, 2018)
• request City Council progressively address and fund a needed multipurpose homeless center modeling the successful center built in Springfield called FOH (Friends of the Homeless). Further, request City Council conduct a full audit of the SMOC and City of Worcester contract obligations (April 23, 2019)
• request to immediately cease the allocation of money used to purchase future military-grade weapons and gear for the Worcester Police Department and immediately prohibit the use of already purchased military-grade equipment. Further, request police officers be prohibited from covering their badge numbers at any time, in any way (June 9, 2020)
• request City Council 1) formally recognize the housing crisis in the city; and 2) declare a Local State of Emergency concerning said housing crisis (Aug. 23, 2023)

Then came October 2024.

On October 15, 2024, members of the Republican City Committee in Worcester brought a petition to the council to draft a city charter amendment to require naturalized citizens, those who were not born in the United States but granted citizenship, to “submit naturalization papers or other legal documents as proof of citizenship to the City Clerk’s Office and any other necessary office or department” to run for local office.

This petition should not have received access to the council’s agenda, as it is plainly unlawful. The United States does not make different classes of citizens except for the ability to run for President of the United States. Individuals cannot run for office without registering to vote. Only citizens may register to vote.

This gross, divisive petition surprisingly led to some unity within the council, which unanimously rejected the petition. This drivel led to a surprisingly decent night for the city and city council. Almost everyone at City Hall that night, except for those who brought the petition, found it disgusting.

Any benefit that came from the unified rejection of this petition lived a very short life.

A Self-Created Crisis: Viewpoint Discrimination

Months earlier, activists began organizing a resolution related to a ceasefire in the Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip that followed the attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. They met with or contacted every city councilor to advocate for their forthcoming resolution. All city councilors knew this resolution would come before them.

The city council approved a resolution condemning the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel shortly after they occurred in 2023.

According to the organizers of the ceasefire resolution, by October 2024, they had gathered 1,500 signatures of Worcester residents supporting the resolution. They submitted the resolution prior to the deadline for the city council meeting of October 22, 2024.

The deadline to submit items for the council’s meeting is 4 PM on the Thursday prior to the council meeting at 4 PM. For the Oct. 22, 2024 meeting, the deadline to submit occurred on Oct. 17, 2024, at 4 PM.

The city clerk’s office decides which resident-submitted items are included in the council’s agenda based on the council’s rules and instructions from the council. The clerk has also said publicly that the council chair, Mayor Joe Petty, has the ultimate authority to decide what items reach the council’s agenda.

The clerk’s office rejected the ceasefire resolution from appearing on the agenda. Petty later said that some councilors requested a more strict enforcement of the council’s rules after the GOP City Committee petitioned the week before.

Rejecting the ceasefire petition from the agenda means that between the end of the council’s meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 15 at 9:55 PM and the deadline to submit items to the council on Oct. 17 at 4 PM, the city council redefined the enforcement of its existing rules without meeting or voting.

In other words, inside about 40 hours, the rules changed, but the words of the rules stayed the same. That’s not credible. Obviously, there was a desire to avoid going on the record with a vote on this resolution.

Hundreds of supporters of the ceasefire resolution attended the city council meeting on Oct. 22. During the public participation portion of the meeting, a supporter of the resolution attempted to address the rejection of the petition. Mayor Petty shut it down. It was cringeworthy.

Let’s pause for a moment. If your views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict tell you that those you don’t agree with should be prohibited from speaking in America, you are a raging, un-American idiot. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Despite councilors’ advanced knowledge that this resolution would be brought to the council, they chose to take the most inflammatory path, then cast themselves as the victim.

As you can begin to hear in the video, supporters of the resolution erupted in protest until the council ended its meeting. The video doesn’t do the protest justice. Protesters were unrelenting and extremely loud in the council chambers. Rightfully so.

Some councilors extracted as much political benefit from the interruption as possible. Councilor Kate Toomey described the protest as a “riot.”

The arguments to justify their draconian response, nearly eliminating the ability for residents to petition the council, were absurd.

Although the last request for a resolution on an international matter from a resident (that I could find) came in 2008, councilors worried about a sudden onslaught of international issues being brought to the council.

Their evidence? None.

The other prominent argument centered on the “important city business” the council must do.

In 2025, the council held two meetings that ran for under one hour. It surrendered another regular meeting to hold a meeting on the DOJ report, rather than the special meeting they voted to have (special meetings typically refer to meetings outside of the regular schedule).

All this came in a year in which the council met 31 times, tied with only the previous year as the fewest city council meeting held since 2007.

Those sorry, gutless excuses are their justification for shutting you out.

Representation via Liability

In December, the ACLU wrote to the city council, calling the rejection of the petition from the agenda a case of viewpoint discrimination. It demanded the resolution be heard. In January 2025, the council added the resolution to its agenda.

We got to see how many of the same people behaved when the resolution was heard on Jan. 7, 2025.

The council voted 6-5 to deny the resolution an up or down vote and file the item. Councilors Bergman, Colorio, Mero-Carlson, Russell, Toomey, and Petty voted to support filing the item. Some people in attendance were upset at the result and expressed their feelings briefly. Then the supporters of the resolution left.

The actions of the council created what happened on Oct. 22, not the supporters of the resolution. Mayor Petty explained his position during the Jan. 7 meeting.

Petty, nor any other councilor, raised a motion to reconsider the October 2023 resolution on the Oct. 7 attacks. If it was a mistake, they could have corrected it.

The narrative from Petty and his allies around the new interpretation of the council’s rules centered around the concept of purview. The argument seemed to indicate that if the council doesn’t have the power to impact an issue, it shouldn’t be before the council.

The narrative soon shifted again. Petty later told Talk of the Commonwealth with Hank Stolz that there was no viewpoint discrimination against the Gaza ceasefire petitioners, because “councilors can bring anything they want.”

The city council rules do not indicate such a universal right.

However, if this is Petty’s interpretation, then what “mistake” is he referring to in his Jan. 7, 2024 comments?

Exceptions to the Second New Interpretation

Two months after the rejection of the Gaza petition in October 2024, with a council that Mayor Joe Petty declared would only take up issues “within its purview,” this petition appeared on the council agenda on Dec. 17, 2024:

“Richard Cipro, Anthony Petrone and Thomas Duffy on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Police Officials Local 504 and New England Police Benevolent Association Local 911 request City Council request City Manager request the Department of Justice release and present in a public forum the full investigatory report, specifically to what the DOJ states are “credible allegations” of criminal sexual misconduct alleged to be committed by members of the Worcester Police Department. Further, request City Council request City Manager request the Department of Justice include the dates, times, and names of all individuals alleged to have committed the stated misconduct and/or potential criminal activity.”

I have no issues with the petitioners submitting the petition. Although they are law enforcement officers, they shouldn’t be expected to know the very niche federal law that created the pattern or practice investigation that the DOJ initiated on the Worcester Police Department.

However, the reality is that these investigations are governed by two sections of federal law:

• 34 U.S. Code § 12601 – Cause of action
• 34 U.S. Code § 12602 – Data on use of excessive force

§12601 (b) says:

“Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.”

In other words, the petition requests the federal government to break its own law. In contrast, part of the ceasefire in Gaza petition asked the federal government to follow its own laws.

That police union leaders’ petition was sent to the Standing Committee on Public Safety, where it sat around, with nobody willing to deal with the facts, for months. The petitioners eventually rescinded it.

So one of two things has to be true:

1. Mayor Petty, as chair and arbiter of the council rules, believes that it is within the purview of the Worcester City Council to resolve that the federal government should defy federal law; or
2. The petition sat within the council process for months because of who the petitioners are.

The previous piece in this series covers why the second option is the plainly obvious motivation.

The reason is obvious. In many municipal elections, including in Worcester, turnout is low. Police unions turn out their people for elections. You don’t.

The council’s new interpretation of its rules had a significant effect on the ability of residents to petition their government. As This Week in Worcester previously reported, in the first seven months of 2025, the rate of resident petitions denied increased by 715%.

Politically Convenient Exceptions

Despite the massive increase in rejected petitions in 2025, on Feb. 10, 2026, the council had this item on its agenda:

“Fred Taylor requests City Council recognize Dr. Carter G. Woodson and other Black artists, musicians, educators, athletes, inventors, and activists for their contributions and success stories.”

Taylor is the president of the Worcester chapter of the NAACP. I have no issue with the text of the petition, and neither should you.

Why were dozens of other residents petitions denied access to be heard by their elected officials?

Very simple: that item plays well politically.

You come far behind the majority faction’s number one priority: reelection for themselves. Their personal ambition to return to the place they treat as their personal country club, called the Worcester City Council, far outweighs any concerns of the plebs.

The next piece in this series will focus on the March 2025 arrest by ICE on Eureka Street, comparing the narratives of city officials and the orders officers received before reporting to the scene.

Anna Maria College to Lay Off 150, Close Next Month

PAXTON – Anna Maria College filed a required notice of 150 layoffs planned between June 22 and June 30. The college announced on Thursday, April 23, that it will cease operations after it holds graduation ceremonies on May 9.

The announcement came in a joint statement from Anna Maria College President Sean Ryan, and the Chair of the Board of Trustees David Trainor. The college also published a length frequently asked questions section on its website. At the time of publication, the FAQ was last updated on April 26.

The independent auditor that conducted the college’s annual financial review for FY 2025 expressed “substantial doubt” that the college had the resources to continue operating. The Massachusetts Department of Higher Education also issued a report with similar doubts about the college’s ability to continue.

According to the college, both Ryan and the Board of Trustees examined “every realistic path forward,” but “none were viable.” The Board of Trustees voted to finalize the decision.

The college established pathway agreements that guarantee admission, comparable financial aid, and transfer credit evaluation for its students at Worcester State University, Regis College, Springfield College, Bay Path University, Elms College, Fitchburg State University, and UMass Lowell. The college says that more transfer partners are actively being added.

The Anna Maria website has a frequently asked questions section for current students, admitted or deposited students, student-athletes, international students, and faculty and staff.

Anna Maria College filed the layoff notifications in compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). WARN requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide written notice to the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development at least 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff.

Gardner Man Charged in Federal Court for Fentanyl Distribution

WORCESTER – A local man faces federal charges for possessing fentanyl for distribution.

The office of U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Leah Foley announced on Thursday, April 23, that it filed one count of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl against Jason Page, 41, of Gardner.

Page made an initial appearance in federal court in Worcester the same day.

According to federal prosecutors, law enforcement launched an investigation of Page during the spring of 2024 for alleged drug trafficking.

In January 2026, law enforcement searched Page’s apartment in Gardner and allegedly discovered over $29,000, digital scales, psilocybin mushrooms, and marijuana. A search of a storage locker belonging to Page in Leominster allegedly resulted in the discovery of over 60 grams of fentanyl pills, 47 grams of fentanyl powder, 95 grams of cocaine, 240 grams of methamphetamine, and 60 grams of MDMA.

The charge of possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl provides for no less than five years and up to 40 years in prison, at least four years of supervised release and a fine of $5 million.

Editor’s note: The information provided in this report is based on events as described by the U.S. Department of Justice. The claims within are allegations which may be challenged by the accused in court.