Columbia Man Sentenced to 100 Months in Federal Prison for Guns and Drugs

Paubon Ojo was sentenced to 100 months in federal prison in a developing court proceeding, according to official filings.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 9:30 a.m. ET

Developing · checked 4h 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 20, 2026, 6:11 a.m. ET — checked 4h ago.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Carolina, 27-year-old Paubon Ojo of Columbia was on August 12, 2026, to 100 months in federal prison followed by three years of court-ordered supervision. United States District Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Ojo for possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Federal authorities noted that there is no parole in the federal system, and the case remains developing. Official court documents state that on May 27, 2023, officers with the Richland County Sheriff's Department responded to a store on Decker Blvd following a report of shoplifting. Officers detained Ojo after he attempted to flee. A search revealed a stolen firearm in Ojo's pocket, as well as 447.3 grams of marijuana and a scale in his backpack. Ojo has prior convictions for shoplifting, burglary, grand larceny, and strong-arm robbery, preventing him from possessing a weapon under federal law. The case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Richland County Sheriff's Department, and the Lexington County Sheriff's Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Lamar J. Fyall prosecuted the case as part of Project Safe Neighborhoods.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:30current
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.