Two Sentenced for Cashing Stolen U.S. Treasury Checks in Montgomery
Devin Zia Adkins and Sylena Christina Salikram were sentenced in the Middle District of Alabama for negotiating stolen Treasury checks.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 23, 2026, 2:45 p.m. ET
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 Aug 23, 2026, 3:08 p.m. ET — checked 1h ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 23, 2026, 2:50 p.m. ET
Man Sentenced for Cashing Stolen U.S. Treasury Checks in Montgomery
Devin Zia Adkins has been sentenced in the Middle District of Alabama for his role in cashing stolen U.S. Treasury checks, according to waka.com. The sentencing was announced on August 23, 2026.
Adkins and co-defendant Sylena Christina Salikram obtained stolen U.S. Treasury checks and used stolen and fraudulent identification information to negotiate them at multiple post office locations in Montgomery, waka.com reported. The investigation involved the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency’s Metro Area Crime Suppression (MACS) unit, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and the Montgomery Police Department.
The report did not specify the length of the sentence or the counts on which Adkins was convicted.
Aug 23, 2026, 2:45 p.m. ETFirst report
Two Sentenced for Cashing Stolen U.S. Treasury Checks in Montgomery
Two people have been sentenced in the Middle District of Alabama for their involvement in a scheme to cash stolen U.S. Treasury checks, according to waka.com. The sentencing was announced on August 23, 2026.
Devin Zia Adkins and Sylena Christina Salikram were sentenced after being accused of obtaining stolen U.S. Treasury checks and using stolen and fraudulent identification information to negotiate the checks at multiple post office locations in Montgomery, as reported by waka.com.
The investigation involved the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency’s Metro Area Crime Suppression (MACS) unit, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and the Montgomery Police Department, according to waka.com.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 18:50current
First published.
- Version 123 Aug 2026, 18:45current
First published.
- Version 123 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.