Two Charleston Women Plead Guilty to Federal Drug Charges in West Virginia
Tanisha Constance Brown and Tiffany Sloan-Combs pleaded guilty to federal drug conspiracy charges as part of a developing federal investigation in Charleston.
By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 10:26 a.m. ET
According to official court records from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, two Charleston women guilty on August 13, 2026, to federal drug crimes. Tanisha Constance Brown, 36, guilty to conspiracy to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture containing fentanyl. Tiffany Sloan-Combs, 40, guilty to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and, in a separate case, to distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Both admitted to participating in a conspiracy distributing fentanyl and crack in the Charleston area between September 2025 and April 2026.
According to official documents presented in court, Sloan-Combs admitted to selling approximately 4 ounces of methamphetamine to a confidential informant in exchange for $1,300 on May 23, 2023, in Charleston. U.S. District Judge Irene C. Berger presided over the hearings. Brown and Sloan-Combs are scheduled for sentencing on December 9, 2026. Brown faces a mandatory minimum of 5 years and up to 40 years in prison, at least 4 years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $5 million. Sloan-Combs faces a mandatory minimum of 5 years and up to 60 years in prison, at least 4 years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $6 million.
Brown and Sloan-Combs are among eight individuals indicted following a federal investigation into fentanyl trafficking. Lead defendant Antonio Andre Smith, 50, and co-conspirator Jerry Lucilo Grass, 41, guilty on July 22, 2026, and are scheduled to be sentenced on November 19, 2026. Two other defendants guilty to separate charges, while the main indictment remains pending against remaining defendants. An indictment is merely an allegation, and all untried defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
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.