You are here

Justice News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Convicted Felon Charged Federally With Possessing A Stolen Firearm

     The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District Pennsylvania announced that a federal grand jury in Harrisburg returned an indictment today charging David Thomas Macon, Jr., age 23, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with possessing a stolen firearm and possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony.

     According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, initially Harrisburg City Police responded to a 911 hang-up call and learned that Macon allegedly had assaulted his former girlfriend.  Allegedly Macon was stopped shortly thereafter and found to be allegedly in possession of a loaded stolen 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, a violation of federal firearms laws.

     The case was investigated by the Harrisburg City Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as part of a coordinated effort to prosecute violent crime in Harrisburg involving firearms.

     Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Daryl Bloom.

     Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

     A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

     In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute for each count of the Indictment is ten years imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is 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.

Updated April 16, 2015