FirstAlerts

Modesto Man Indicted on Federal Firearm Charge

A federal grand jury has indicted Luis Antonio Perez Sigala on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The case is at the charging stage and remains undecided.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 28, 2026, 8:41 p.m. ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal grand jury on Thursday returned an indictment against Luis Antonio Perez Sigala, 29, of Modesto, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant announced. The indictment was announced on August 28, 2026. According to court documents, in August 2026, Sigala possessed a black Makarov handgun and 10 rounds of .380-caliber ammunition. Sigala is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition because of prior felony convictions. The Merced County Sheriff’s Office and the Stanislaus County Probation Department conducted the investigation with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney James Langston is prosecuting the case. If convicted, Sigala faces a maximum statutory penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Because the case is only at the charging stage, it has not been decided by a court.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 129 Aug 2026, 00:41current

    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.