Deron Lewis-Payne Sentenced to 121 Months for Omaha Bank Robbery
A federal judge sentenced an Omaha man to 121 months in prison after official records showed he used ChatGPT to plan a bank robbery.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 4:22 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 19, 2026, 4:22 p.m. ETFirst report
Omaha Man Sentenced to 121 Months in Federal Prison for Bank Robbery
Deron Lewis-Payne, 23, of Omaha, Nebraska, was sentenced on August 13, 2026, to 121 months in federal prison for bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, according to an official court record announced by United States Attorney Lesley A. Woods on August 19, 2026. District Court Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. sentenced Lewis-Payne to serve 37 months on the robbery charge and 84 months on the brandishing charge consecutively, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. There is no parole in the federal system.
According to the official record from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Nebraska, Lewis-Payne entered the i3Bank at 15645 Spaulding St. in Omaha on February 10, 2026. He brandished a black semi-automatic handgun at two bank employees, threatened to kill them if they did not comply, and instructed them not to include dye packs. He took approximately $9,175.00 in cash before fleeing. Surveillance footage captured his unmasked face, his red Nike slides, and features of his vehicle. Video and transaction records showed him subsequently using cash to buy shoes and clothing at Westroads Mall.
When officers located Lewis-Payne near a residence, he fled and abandoned banded cash. He admitted to driving the vehicle but denied involvement in the robbery, consenting to a search of his phone. Officers determined he used ChatGPT to plan the robbery, seeking advice on law enforcement response times, how to strip and repair a Llama Mini-Max .45 handgun, and how to obtain ammunition as a felon. Officers recovered $2,397.00 of the stolen cash, while the handgun was never recovered. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 20:23current
First published.
- Version 119 Aug 2026, 20:22current
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.