FirstAlerts

Brazilian Man Pleads Guilty to Third Illegal Reentry

Reginaldo Nunes Dos Santos, 49, admitted to illegal reentry and was sentenced to two months in prison.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 25, 2026, 2:52 p.m. ET
UTICA, NEW YORK – Reginaldo Nunes Dos Santos, 49, of Brazil, guilty on July 28, 2026, to one count of illegal reentry into the United States, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York. The plea was announced on August 24, 2026, by First Assistant United States Attorney John A. Sarcone III and James P. D’Amato, Acting Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol Buffalo Sector. Dos Santos had been arrested two previous times for entering the United States illegally. Most recently, he was arrested in Texas in 2019 and deported in 2020. On June 11, 2026, he was arrested after a traffic stop near Watertown, New York. United States District Judge Anthony J. Brindisi sentenced Dos Santos to two months’ imprisonment. Following his sentence, Dos Santos is subject to deportation. The case was investigated by the U.S. Border Patrol and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Whalen.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 125 Aug 2026, 18:52current

    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.