FirstAlerts

Texas man sentenced to 14 days in federal prison for shooting bald eagle

Santos Guerrero, 43, was sentenced after pleading guilty to shooting and killing a bald eagle in his backyard.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 21, 2026, 1:22 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 21, 2026, 12:22 p.m. ETWritten Aug 21, 2026, 3:22 p.m. ET
A Texas man has been to for shooting and killing a bald eagle, according to reports from abc13.com and fox26houston.com. Santos Guerrero, 43, was on August 21, 2026, in connection with the October 11, 2024 incident. Reports differ on the details of the shooting. abc13.com reported that Guerrero shot the eagle in his backyard, hid the bird in his garage, and later lied to law enforcement. fox26houston.com reported that Guerrero shot the bald eagle while it was perched in a tree in his backyard. The reports also differ on the court: fox26houston.com identified the district as the , while abc13.com referred to the . The statutory maximum for the offense is a fine of no more than $5,000 or more than one year in prison, or both, according to fox26houston.com.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 21, 2026, 1:22 p.m. ETFirst report

    Texas man sentenced for shooting bald eagle in backyard

    A Texas man has been sentenced to 14 days in federal prison and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine for shooting a bald eagle, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas. The sentence was announced on August 21, 2026, by Fox 26 Houston.

    Santos Guerrero shot the bald eagle while it was perched in a tree in his backyard on October 11, 2024, according to Fox 26 Houston. The maximum penalty for the offense is a fine of no more than $5,000 or more than one year in prison, or both.

    The case was prosecuted in the Southern District of Texas.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 121 Aug 2026, 19:22current

    First published.

  2. Version 121 Aug 2026, 17:22current

    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.