Georgia Man Guilty of 69 Counts in Dog Fighting Case

The specific federal laws that define and criminalize “possessing a dog for use in an animal fighting venture” are:

• 7 U.S.C. § 2156(b) (part of the Animal Welfare Act), which makes it unlawful to knowingly sell, buy, possess, train, transport, deliver, or receive any animal for the purpose of having it participate in an “animal fighting venture.”
• 7 U.S.C. § 2156(g)(1), which defines an “animal fighting venture” as any event in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce where at least two animals fight for sport, wagering, or entertainment.
• 18 U.S.C. § 49, which provides the criminal penalties (up to 5 years in prison and fines per violation) for violating 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)–(d), including subsection (b) on possessing animals for fighting.

These are the statutes typically charged in federal dog‑fighting possession cases like Bradford’s.

A conviction for “possession of a firearm in furtherance of” a crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) generally requires the government to prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The defendant committed a qualifying underlying offense (usually a drug‑trafficking crime or crime of violence).
2. The defendant knowingly possessed a firearm.
3. The possession was “in furtherance of” that crime—meaning the gun helped advance, protect, or facilitate the offense (for example, being kept loaded and accessible to guard drugs or money, used for intimidation, or otherwise strategically positioned to support the crime).

Courts distinguish this from simply having a gun nearby; there must be a concrete link showing the firearm furthered the underlying crime.

Based on available information, at least the firearm count in Bradford’s case carries a possible life sentence:

• The press reports say Bradford “faces a maximum penalty of life in prison,” and he was convicted of one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime, which is prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
• Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the penalty for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a qualifying offense is a mandatory minimum term (starting at 5 years) up to life in prison, to be served consecutively to other sentences.
• By contrast, each animal‑fighting count (7 U.S.C. § 2156(b), enforced through 18 U.S.C. § 49) carries up to 5 years per count, not life.
• The drug‑manufacturing count could in theory carry very high maximums under 21 U.S.C. § 841, but the specific statute subsection and drug quantity in Bradford’s case are not publicly detailed, so it is not clear whether that count alone authorizes a life maximum.

So the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) count clearly carries a potential life sentence; the dog‑fighting counts do not, and the drug count’s maximum cannot be confirmed from public documents.

Bradford’s exact sentencing date has not yet been set publicly; the DOJ‑based coverage states only that “sentencing will be scheduled at a later date,” so the specific day is currently unknown.

In federal cases like this, the sentencing date is set by the judge after:

• The Probation Office completes a presentence investigation report (PSR), which usually takes several weeks.
• The parties receive the PSR and file any objections or sentencing memos.
• The court coordinates its calendar and issues an order setting the sentencing hearing.

This process commonly results in sentencing occurring roughly 2–4 months after conviction, but the exact timing depends on the judge’s schedule, the complexity of the case, and any continuances.

Public reporting on Bradford’s case does not specify the current status of the 67 rescued dogs (where they are now, who exactly is housing them, or whether each individual dog is already cleared for adoption).

In comparable federal dog‑fighting cases, the usual pattern is:

• Dogs are first placed in “protective custody” with local animal shelters, humane societies, or specialized rescue partners working with law enforcement.
• They receive veterinary care, behavior assessment, and rehabilitation while criminal and forfeiture proceedings are pending.
• Through civil or criminal forfeiture, custody is transferred away from the defendant, after which many dogs can be made eligible for adoption or sanctuary placement, depending on each dog’s health and behavior.

Federal agencies and animal‑welfare organizations (such as the FBI working with rescues, or ASPCA/HSUS in other dog‑fighting cases) describe this general post‑seizure process, but the case‑specific fate of Bradford’s 67 dogs has not been reported in detail.

Operation Take Back America is a U.S. Department of Justice initiative, created in 2025, that:

• Consolidates and redirects the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) and Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) toward core enforcement goals defined by DOJ leadership and the Trump administration.
• Those stated goals include “repelling the invasion of illegal immigration,” “eliminating cartels and transnational criminal organizations,” and combating violent crime and illegal drug trafficking in communities.

Bradford’s case is included in this initiative because DOJ characterizes his operation as tied to broader criminal activity—dog‑fighting combined with drug manufacturing and firearms offenses—which fits Operation Take Back America’s focus on multi‑offense, organized or enterprise‑type crime impacting community safety, even though the core conduct here is animal fighting rather than immigration or cartel leadership.

The agencies mentioned in the article played complementary roles typical of a joint federal–local investigation:

• Mitchell County Sheriff’s Office and Code Enforcement Office (local): Responded to a citizen complaint about animal tethering and neglect at Bradford’s property; observed numerous chained dogs and apparent cruelty; helped obtain and execute local search warrants and physically seized the 67 dogs and on‑site evidence. A 2024 post from the Sheriff’s Office describes rescuing 67 pit bull dogs in a dog‑fighting and cruelty case with help from USDA‑OIG and the GBI.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including its Office of Inspector General (OIG): Provided specialized agents and animal‑welfare expertise in dog‑fighting investigations, helped execute federal search warrants, document conditions, and build the animal‑fighting charges under the Animal Welfare Act.
• U.S. Marshals Service (USMS): Assisted with search‑warrant operations, scene security, and custody of the defendant, and, as DOJ officials noted, worked to ensure rescued dogs were placed in protective custody so they could later be rehabilitated and rehomed.
• Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI): Assisted as a state‑level investigative agency, supporting the local sheriff and federal partners with criminal investigation, evidence processing, and coordination across jurisdictions.

Together, these agencies combined local knowledge, animal‑welfare expertise, federal investigative powers, and state forensic support to uncover Bradford’s dog‑fighting operation, rescue the animals, and support the federal prosecution.