Webb County Sheriff Martin Cuellar has been indicted on federal charges tied to an alleged scheme involving a for‑profit COVID disinfecting business that prosecutors say used county staff and supplies.

Martin Cuellar, the long‑time Webb County sheriff and brother of Representative Henry Cuellar, faces five federal felony counts accusing him of diverting taxpayer resources to a private venture during the pandemic. He has pleaded not guilty and was released on bond while the case proceeds in federal court. Cuellar first won his sheriff’s post in 2009 and was reelected in 2024, a record of local incumbency that adds weight to the accusations now leveled against him.

Federal prosecutors say Cuellar and his assistant chief, Alejandro Gutierrez, set up a private company called Disinfect Pro Master in April 2020 and steered county employees and supplies to the business instead of using company resources. The indictment alleges the operation secured a roughly $500,000 contract to clean local schools and then ran “almost entirely with county employees and supplies,” according to statements from the Justice Department. Prosecutors also contend both men received payouts from the venture.

According to the charges, each man allegedly pocketed about $175,000 from the disinfecting contract, a substantial sum that prosecutors say came at the expense of taxpayers and official duty. The government frames this as an abuse of public office during a public health emergency, arguing county personnel and materials were improperly diverted to support a private, for‑profit concern. The scale of the contract and the alleged use of county resources are central to the federal case.

Cuellar’s lawyer, Eric Reed, pushed back strongly in public comments, asserting the government will be unable to show the sheriff knowingly participated in or intended any misconduct. “The government is going to have to prove their case that whatever misconduct happened by another person was intended by the sheriff and known by him,” Reed said, according to KSAT. “And they’ll never be able to make that case because he did not know and was not involved.”

Cuellar himself released a statement stressing his long career in public service and his integrity, saying he “spent 45 years serving the State of Texas and this community with integrity and honor.” That declaration is now part of the public record as the indictment moves forward and as his legal team prepares a defense focused on lack of knowledge and intent. The contrast between decades of service and sudden criminal allegations fuels local debate over accountability.

The indictment does not exist in a vacuum; Cuellar’s career has seen past legal scrutiny. Early in his tenure, the sheriff’s office faced a federal civil rights lawsuit after the death of Rafael Solis Sr. in custody in 2009, a death ruled a homicide tied to mechanical and positional asphyxiation from restraints. Plaintiffs argued the county tolerated abusive detainee treatment and failed to properly train jail staff, and the county ultimately settled that suit for $1 million weeks before trial.

Those earlier civil claims and the current criminal indictment combine to create a complicated public image for a county lawman who has been a fixture in Webb County for more than a decade. On one hand, long service and local support can insulate officials; on the other hand, recurring legal troubles keep scrutiny alive and make any new allegations more damaging politically. Residents and county leaders will watch how hard evidence ties the sheriff to the alleged scheme.

The political context matters. Martin Cuellar’s brother, Representative Henry Cuellar, has also faced legal challenges, including an indictment on federal bribery and conspiracy charges that ended with a presidential pardon. That connection raises questions about political optics and how legal trouble within a family can ripple across local and national conversations. Critics see the family link as part of a pattern; supporters describe it as unrelated and unfairly charged against separate individuals.

As prosecutors prepare their case, they will need to show clear proof that county resources were knowingly diverted and that the sheriff accepted or intended to benefit unlawfully. The defense will emphasize lack of involvement and the difficulty of proving intent in complex operational decisions made early in the pandemic. Both sides will build narratives: one of alleged exploitation of public trust, and one of a long public servant caught in allegations he contests.

The coming legal process will determine whether the indictment leads to convictions or whether prosecutors fail to meet the burden of proof required in federal court. For now, Cuellar remains an elected official with a not guilty plea and a community divided by competing accounts of his conduct. The case will be a test of how federal authorities treat alleged misuse of emergency‑era contracts and the standards they apply when public servants are accused of private profiteering.