FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Burlington Man Sentenced to 72 Months for Drug Trafficking

Christopher Dezotelle, 43, was sentenced to 72 months in prison for conspiring to distribute fentanyl and cocaine base.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 31, 2026, 2:02 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 1h ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 31, 2026, 2:09 p.m. ET — checked 1h ago.

RUTLAND, Vt. — Christopher Dezotelle, 43, most recently of Burlington, Vermont, was on August 27, 2026, to 72 months in prison followed by four years of supervised release, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont. Dezotelle had pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base and 40 grams or more of fentanyl. Court records state that between May 2024 and June 2024, he conspired to distribute narcotics around Burlington. A confidential informant made recorded controlled purchases from Dezotelle and a coconspirator during the investigation. The investigation led to a search of Apartment 3 at 95 Grant Street in Burlington, where law enforcement found approximately 259 grams of fentanyl, 92 grams of powder cocaine, 22 grams of cocaine base, and smaller amounts of other controlled substances, including methamphetamine. They also seized $4,406 in cash. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua L. Banker, and Dezotelle was represented by Chandler Matson, Esq. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan A. Ophardt commended the collaborative efforts of the Burlington Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 131 Aug 2026, 18:02current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.