FirstAlerts

Plymouth man convicted of felony methamphetamine dealing charges

Aaron Joseph Seibold was convicted on two Level 2 felony dealing counts in Marshall County, according to abc57.com.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 10, 2026, 2:54 p.m. ETWritten Sep 10, 2026, 4:33 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 58 min 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 Sep 10, 2026, 6:10 p.m. ET — checked 58 min ago.

Aaron Joseph Seibold has been of two counts of Dealing Methamphetamine, both Level 2 felonies, abc57.com reported. The charges are dealing methamphetamine in an amount over 10 grams, and dealing methamphetamine in an amount between 5 and 10 grams, according to abc57.com. The government alleged Seibold dealt methamphetamine in two controlled purchases in 2024, one of $100 worth of meth and one of 13 grams for $200, abc57.com reported. The case was handled by the Marshall County Prosecutor's Office, according to abc57.com. Level 2 felonies carry a sentencing range of 10 to 30 years in prison, abc57.com reported. That range is the maximum the offense carries; no sentence has been reported. The date of the conviction has not been established in the available reporting.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 20:33current

    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.