Public January 6 profile · ready to claim

Cepane Jo Sarty

January 6 case-file subject

Archive card · not a photograph

Cepane Jo Sarty is a Georgia man whose January 6 prosecution ended before trial, conviction, or sentencing. He was prosecuted with his brother, Seth Eden Sarty, in *United States v. Sarty*, No. 1:24-cr-00130-CKK, before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The archive separates the government’s allegations, his not-guilty plea, and the final dismissal with prejudice. None is presented as a complete judgment about his character. ## Verified procedural record An FBI Statement of Facts filed January 19, 2024 in magistrate matter No. 1:24-mj-00019-MAU set out the government’s probable-cause allegations and included investigator-selected surveillance and body-camera images. DOJ reported that Cepane and Seth were arrested by the FBI in Georgia on February 5, 2024. A grand-jury indictment later charged each brother with two felony counts and six misdemeanor counts. On March 22, 2024, both entered not-guilty pleas. A jury trial was scheduled for June 2, 2025, but it did not occur. On January 21, 2025, the government moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice under Rule 48(a), citing the January 20 presidential directive concerning pending January 6 cases. Cepane consented to the requested relief. Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion on January 24, dismissed the indictment with prejudice, vacated the release orders and scheduled proceedings, denied pending motions as moot, and closed the case. Cepane was not convicted or sentenced. ## Charges The indictment alleged civil disorder; assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers; entering or remaining in restricted grounds; disorderly or disruptive conduct in restricted grounds; physical violence in restricted grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; physical violence in Capitol grounds or a building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. These remained allegations because the case ended before trial. ## Clemency and dismissal distinction The presidential proclamation directed DOJ to pursue dismissal with prejudice of pending January 6 indictments. The court’s Rule 48(a) order is the controlling judicial disposition in Cepane’s case. The Office of the Pardon Attorney recipient page reviewed for this profile returned an exact entry for Seth Eden Sarty but no Cepane entry. The archive therefore does not infer that a person-specific certificate was requested or issued to Cepane without additional official documentation. ## Timeline - **January 19, 2024:** FBI Statement of Facts filed. - **February 5, 2024:** Arrested by the FBI in Georgia with Seth Sarty. - **March 22, 2024:** Entered a not-guilty plea. - **January 21, 2025:** Government moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice. - **January 24, 2025:** Court dismissed the indictment with prejudice and closed the case. ## Frequently asked questions ### Was Cepane Sarty convicted or sentenced? No. He pleaded not guilty, and the indictment was dismissed with prejudice before trial. ### Is his case separate from Seth Sarty’s case? They were co-defendants in the same criminal case and are identified as brothers in the court record. Shared source documents and timeline events are connected to both profiles. ### Does the archive claim the complaint allegations were proven? No. Complaint and indictment allegations are attributed to the government. The case ended without a trial or fact-finding verdict. ## Archive connections and evidence priorities Related records include the [DOJ arrest announcement](/case/documents/seth-cepane-sarty-doj-arrest-release-2024-02-06), the [FBI Statement of Facts](/case/documents/seth-cepane-sarty-fbi-statement-of-facts-2024-01-19), the [dismissal opinion and order](/case/documents/united-states-v-sarty-dismissal-order-2025-01-24), [Seth Eden Sarty’s profile](/case/people/seth-sarty), the [central timeline](/case/timeline), and [evidence submission](/case/submit). The archive still needs the native indictment, dismissal motion, defense responses, native dismissal order, full docket, authenticated firsthand statements, and a photograph with verified provenance and lawful reuse rights. No portrait is assigned. Government-created evidentiary images are preserved as source material but are not reused as profile photography. The site’s editorial analysis may discuss alleged or documented DOJ weaponization. That analysis remains separate from the complaint allegations, court filings, and dismissal record.