Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What felony and misdemeanor counts were included in Mike Wolf’s 2025 indictment and what statutes do they cite?
Executive Summary
The available materials in the provided analyses do not include a definitive list of felony and misdemeanor counts or the statutory citations for any 2025 indictment of a person identified as Mike Wolf; the documents reference related dockets and similarly named defendants but omit the charging language and statutes. Primary docket entries referenced are United States v. Wolfe (4:23-cr-03100) and United States v. Wolfe (2:23-cr-00026), but neither analysis supplies the indictment text, counts, or statutory citations [1] [2]. The most actionable next step is to obtain the actual indictment or the official docket entries via PACER or the relevant district court clerk, which is the only way to confirm specific counts and statutory references not present in the supplied sources [3].
1. Why the record provided fails to answer the question directly — and where the gaps are most acute
The supplied analyses repeatedly indicate that the texts they reviewed do not include the charging instrument or a count-by-count breakdown; instead, they reference docket identifiers and summary judgments without the underlying indictment language necessary to identify felony and misdemeanor counts or statutory citations. For example, one source notes a judgment of 162 months imprisonment and five years’ supervised release but does not enumerate the offenses that produced that sentence, leaving a critical evidentiary gap [1]. The other entries identify similarly named defendants in separate cases and suggest dockets were accessed at various dates, but none quote enumerated counts or the statutory numbers that would allow a direct mapping to federal or state criminal statutes [1] [2]. This absence of charging language prevents any authoritative statement about specific statutes or count classifications.
2. What the existing docket references imply and how to interpret them cautiously
The docket references given—United States v. Wolfe with distinct case numbers—suggest federal prosecutions in different districts, and the presence of a federal judgment implies conviction on one or more federal counts, but a judgment alone cannot reveal whether convictions were for felonies or misdemeanors without the indictment or the judgment’s offense list [1]. Docket metadata such as case numbers and sentencing lengths can suggest severity and type—long sentences typically correspond to felony convictions under federal law—but this is an inference, not a fact. The analyses explicitly caution that PACER or the district court clerk might hold more recent and complete docket entries, which is the only reliable path to the precise statutory citations and counts that the question demands [3].
3. How name ambiguity and multiple similarly named defendants complicate verification
The supplied material includes entries for several individuals with the surname Wolfe or Wolf—some with matching or similar given names—across different records, including an unrelated sexual offender registry entry and older violent-crime press releases; this overlap increases the risk of conflating separate matters and misattributing counts or statutes [4] [5]. The analyses show that at least two distinct case numbers exist and that one docket retrieved later may contain updated entries; without unique identifiers such as defendant middle names, dates of birth, or precise case documents, linking the exact indictment for “Mike Wolf” in 2025 to the cited dockets cannot be done reliably [2] [3]. Verification therefore requires careful cross-referencing of docket numbers, party names, and official filings.
4. What authoritative sources would resolve the question and why they are necessary
To definitively list felony and misdemeanor counts and the statutes they cite, one must consult the indictment or the superseding indictment document filed in the relevant district-court case, or the court’s docket entries that list the charges and statutory citations. PACER is the authoritative public system for federal dockets and will contain the charging instrument and any superseding indictments; the district court clerk can also provide certified copies [3]. Secondary summaries such as news reports or aggregated databases often omit statutory citations or paraphrase counts and thus cannot substitute for the indictment itself. The analyses provided explicitly recommend PACER as the next step to fill the missing legal details.
5. Balanced conclusion, next steps, and transparency about limits of the supplied data
Given the supplied analyses, there is no authoritative way to enumerate the felony and misdemeanor counts or list the statutes cited in any 2025 indictment of “Mike Wolf”; the existing sources point to related dockets but do not contain the charging language required to answer the question [1] [2] [3]. To move from ambiguity to certainty, obtain the indictment or superseding indictments from PACER or the clerk of the court for the case numbers cited; if you want, I can draft specific PACER search steps and a template request to the clerk citing the case numbers referenced in these analyses. The analysis above is limited strictly to the provided source material and does not introduce outside documents or assumptions beyond what those analyses state.