Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Harrisburg Man Convicted Of Heroin Trafficking
HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Daleo G. Powell, age 32, of Harrisburg, was convicted yesterday of possession with intent to distribute heroin after a two-day jury trial in Harrisburg before Senior U.S. District Court Judge William W. Caldwell.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the jury returned with the verdict of guilty to the drug trafficking after approximately 3 hours of deliberation. The charges were the result of an initial investigation by Harrisburg Bureau of Police in December 2014 that resulted in Powell being found in possession of a loaded firearm and nine bundles of heroin on 15th Street in Harrisburg. The jury acquitted Powell of a related firearms charge. No sentencing date was set for Powell.
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Harrisburg Bureau of Police. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.
This case is part of a district wide initiative to combat the nationwide epidemic regarding the use and distribution of heroin. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the heroin initiative targets heroin traffickers operating in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and is part of a coordinated effort among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The maximum penalty under federal law is twenty years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.
# # #