Cepane and Seth Sarty J6 Case Record: Arrest, Not-Guilty Pleas and Dismissal With Prejudice

By Ryan Nichols

No trial.

No verdict.

No conviction.

Two brothers from Georgia were charged over January 6, pleaded not guilty, and walked out of federal court with the indictment dismissed with prejudice. With prejudice means it is over. Those charges cannot come back.

This is the record of how that happened, built from the court's own order, the FBI's own statement of facts, the Justice Department's own press release and the Pardon Attorney's own list. Every allegation below is labeled as an allegation, because that is all it ever became.

Updated September 23, 2026.

Verified quick facts

Field	Record
Names	Cepane Jo Sarty and Seth Eden Sarty
Archive profiles	Cepane Sarty and Seth Sarty
Case	United States v. Sarty, No. 1:24-cr-00130 (D.D.C.)
Judge	Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Arrest	February 5, 2024, by the FBI in Georgia
Charges	Two felonies and six misdemeanors each
Pleas	Not guilty, March 22, 2024
Trial	Had been set for June 2, 2025. Never held.
Government motion	January 21, 2025: dismiss with prejudice under Rule 48(a)
Result	Indictment dismissed with prejudice, January 24, 2025
Conviction	None
Sentence	None

The eight counts

The indictment charged each brother with the same eight counts. Every one of them ended the same way.

Count	Statute	How it ended
Civil disorder	18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)	Dismissed with prejudice
Assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers	18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)	Dismissed with prejudice
Entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds	18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)	Dismissed with prejudice
Disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds	18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2)	Dismissed with prejudice
Engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds	18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(4)	Dismissed with prejudice
Disorderly conduct in a Capitol building	40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D)	Dismissed with prejudice
Act of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings	40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(F)	Dismissed with prejudice
Parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building	40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G)	Dismissed with prejudice

How the FBI found them

This part gets skipped in most coverage. It should not.

The FBI's statement of facts, filed January 19, 2024 in magistrate case 1:24-mj-00019, lays out the investigation in the agent's own words:

• In May 2021, the FBI received a lead from a search warrant served on Google, about a device identified as being inside the Capitol on January 6. The statement says the account tied to that device is attributed to Cepane.
• In July 2021, the FBI received a notification from the Terrorist Screening Operations Unit about Cepane's upcoming trip overseas.
• When he flew back into Atlanta in August 2021, Customs and Border Protection, at the FBI's request, conducted a secondary inspection that included a document and media exploitation search of his electronic device.
• The statement says CBP found texts on his phone linking him to his brother Seth and referencing both of them being at the Capitol. It also cites airline records and identifications from CBP officers and an unnamed third party.

Read that list again.

A location lead from Google. A terrorist screening notification. A phone search at the airport.

The statement does not explain what triggered the screening notification. I am not going to guess. I am putting it on the record because it is in the government's own filing, and because people deserve to know what tools were pointed at January 6 defendants.

This archive is not publishing the personal contact details that appear in that filing.

What the government alleged about January 6

When the brothers were arrested, the Justice Department's press release described the case this way, citing court documents:

• They entered the Capitol through the Senate Wing Door at about 2:21 p.m.
• They were part of a group that broke through a police line and reached the House side of the building by 2:32 p.m.
• They entered the office suite of the Speaker of the House, then the Rotunda, and left after contact with a chemical agent.
• They re-entered at 3:04 p.m. and, around 3:09 p.m., were at the front of a crowd resisting officers who were clearing the Rotunda. The government said body-worn camera and CCTV footage showed them shoving officers, and that the struggle went on for about nineteen seconds.
• They left through the Rotunda doors at 3:13 p.m.

Those are the government's words about its own evidence.

The same release ends with a line that deserves more attention than it got: a complaint "is merely an allegation," and every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nobody ever proved it. The case never reached a jury.

If the footage shows what the government says, release it.

If it does not, release it.

Either way, release it.

January 20, 2025: the proclamation

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed a proclamation that commuted fourteen sentences, pardoned everyone else convicted of January 6 offenses, and directed the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with prejudice of all pending January 6 indictments.

The Sarty case was a pending indictment.

January 21, 2025: the motion

The next day, the government moved to dismiss the indictment against both brothers with prejudice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). Seth joined the motion. Cepane consented to it.

The only reason the government gave was the President's directive.

January 24, 2025: dismissed with prejudice

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion. Her order:

• Granted the government's motion to dismiss.
• Dismissed the indictment with prejudice under Rule 48(a).
• Vacated both orders setting conditions of release.
• Vacated every remaining date, including the June 2, 2025 jury trial.
• Denied all pending motions as moot and directed the clerk to close the case.

What the judge wrote, in fairness

A fair record includes what the court said, not just what it ordered.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote that she did not discern, and no party had identified, any defect in the legal merits or the factual basis of the government's case that would require dismissal. She also wrote that the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute, so she would not require further explanation.

In a separate section, the judge wrote that dismissals, pardons and commutations will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, that more than 140 officers were injured, and that the day is preserved in video, trial transcripts, jury verdicts and judicial opinions.

That section does not name either brother.

Here is what I take from it, and I am labeling it as mine. A judge is entitled to her view of January 6. The order she signed is what binds. And the order says dismissed with prejudice.

Same judge. Same rule. Different ending.

This matters for anyone trying to understand the post-pardon cases.

The same judge handled the case of Andrew Alan Hernandez. He had pleaded guilty and been sentenced long before January 20, 2025. When the government asked her to dismiss his case under Rule 48(a) after the pardon, she denied that request on April 4, 2025.

Sarty: pending indictment. Dismissal granted.

Hernandez: final conviction. Dismissal route denied.

My read, labeled as documented inference: the difference was where each case stood on January 20, 2025. Read the Hernandez record.

The pardon certificate list

The Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney publishes a list of people who requested and were issued a certificate of pardon under the January 20, 2025 proclamation.

The list includes SARTY, SETH EDEN.

It does not include Cepane. The list only names people who requested and received a certificate, so that absence tells you one thing: no certificate for him appears on that list. It is not evidence of anything else.

My name is on that list too. NICHOLS, RYAN TAYLOR.

What happened, in order

• January 19, 2024: FBI statement of facts filed in the magistrate case
• February 5, 2024: Both brothers arrested in Georgia
• March 22, 2024: Both brothers plead not guilty
• January 20, 2025: The proclamation directs dismissal of pending January 6 indictments. Seth later appears on the certificate list
• January 21, 2025: Government moves to dismiss with prejudice
• January 24, 2025: Indictment dismissed with prejudice and case closed

What the record establishes

• Both brothers were indicted on two felonies and six misdemeanors.
• Both pleaded not guilty.
• No trial happened. No plea agreement was entered. No jury heard the case.
• The indictment was dismissed with prejudice on January 24, 2025.
• The Pardon Attorney's certificate list names Seth Eden Sarty.

What it does not establish

• It does not establish that any government allegation was proven.
• It does not show what the body-worn camera and CCTV footage actually captured beyond the stills in the statement of facts.
• It does not include the full docket, the text of the indictment, or either brother's own account.

Ryan's take

I know what it is to have a federal indictment hanging over your name. My own January 6 case ended in a pardon and a dismissal with prejudice. So I read orders like this one differently than most reporters do.

Here is what I see.

An investigation that ran through a Google warrant lead, a terrorist screening notification, a phone search at the airport and bodycam stills.

Almost a year of waiting for a trial that never came.

Then an order that ended it with prejudice.

People will argue about January 6 for the rest of their lives. But a record should say what happened in the case, in the order it happened, with the labels right.

Charged. Pleaded not guilty. Dismissed with prejudice. No conviction.

That is the record.

Evidence still needed

The highest-value additions are the full docket, the indictment (ECF No. 20) in a searchable copy, the criminal complaint, the government's motion and both defense responses (ECF Nos. 47, 48 and 49), the body-worn camera files cited in the statement of facts, and a firsthand account from either brother if they choose to give one.

Do not submit sealed material, private contact information, family details, or copyrighted media without permission.

Do not threaten anyone. Do not harass anyone. Do not contact anyone in my name.

Read it. Share it. Send receipts. Put eyes on the record.

Principal sources

• Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States v. Sarty, No. 1:24-cr-00130 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2025)
• FBI Statement of Facts, Case 1:24-mj-00019, filed January 19, 2024
• DOJ press release No. 24-101, February 6, 2024
• January 20, 2025 clemency proclamation
• DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney certificate-recipient list
• Indictment, ECF No. 20, via CourtListener RECAP

Image note: the social artwork is an original symbolic image. It does not depict either brother, a real filing, or an official seal.