FirstAlerts

Three Las Cruces Men Plead Guilty to Federal Firearms Charges

Three New Mexico men have pleaded guilty to federal firearms charges following a September 2025 shooting investigation near a school.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 15, 2026, 2:14 p.m. ET
Developing

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.

More on this incident

On August 14, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico announced that three Las Cruces men have guilty to federal firearms charges. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison and FBI Special Agent in Charge Justin A. Garris of the Albuquerque Field Office made the announcement. According to court records, 24-year-old John Anthony Orta and 22-year-old Steven Mendoza guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm in a school zone after admitting they knowingly possessed loaded firearms within 540 feet of Hermosa Heights Elementary School property on September 6, 2025. Orta was sentenced to six months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Mendoza faces up to five years in prison followed by three years of supervised release at a sentencing that has not yet been scheduled. In addition, court records show that 23-year-old Luis Angel Ruiz guilty to discharging a firearm in a school zone and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Investigators identified Ruiz through social media messages and ballistic evidence connected to the shooting near Young Park. At his upcoming sentencing, Ruiz faces up to five years in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria Y. Armijo is prosecuting the cases.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 115 Aug 2026, 17:57current

    First published.

  2. Version 115 Aug 2026, 17:54current

    First published.

  3. Version 115 Aug 2026, 18:14current

    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 β€” 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 β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” 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 β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” 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.