You are here

Justice News

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, June 20, 2013

Scranton Man Enters Guilty Plea In Conspiracy Case Involving Illegal Aliens

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a Scranton man has entered a plea of guilty before U.S. District Court Senior Judge Richard P. Conaboy in Scranton to a conspiracy involving the transportation of illegal aliens.

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Kerin Hamim, an Indonesian national and illegal alien, pleaded guilty Wednesday to a Felony Information charging him with conspiracy to transport illegal aliens. Hamim was charged for committing the offenses beginning in September 2012 through March 2013.  The charges are the result of a joint investigation by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Pennsylvania State Police.

     The Information to which Hamim pleaded guilty alleges a conspiracy whereby Hamim’s conduct acted to facilitate the employment of dozens of illegal temporary employees to a meat packaging business located in Scranton, Pennsylvania.   It is alleged that Hamim, in furtherance of the conspiracy, knowingly provided transportation for the illegal workers and paid the illegal work force in cash on a weekly basis.

     Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski.

     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 particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is five 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.

Updated April 17, 2015