Jury Convicts Erosion Control Company, Executive, and Employee in Price-Fixing Scheme
A federal jury found Sioux Erosion Control Inc., BG Dale Biscoe, and Randall David Shelton guilty of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 6:50 p.m. ET
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 have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.
Earlier reports
Aug 20, 2026, 6:50 p.m. ETFirst report
Jury Convicts Erosion Control Company, Executive, and Employee in Price-Fixing Scheme
A federal jury has convicted Sioux Erosion Control Inc., along with BG Dale Biscoe and Randall David Shelton, for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy, the Department of Justice announced. The convictions stem from charges that the defendants conspired with competitors to raise and maintain prices for erosion control products and services, allocate contracts, and rig bids between September 2017 and April 2023, according to justice.gov.
The maximum penalty for individuals is 10 years in prison and a $1 million criminal fine, while the maximum penalty for corporations is a $100 million criminal fine, as reported by justice.gov.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 22:52current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 22:50current
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.