Additional Charges Filed Against Hazleton Man For Trafficking Cocaine

SCRANTON- The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Rafael Lora, age 42, of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, was charged in a superseding indictment on January 23, 2018, with additional cocaine trafficking offenses.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, Lora and a co-defendant, Luis Santos, were charged on April 14, 2016, with conspiring to distribute cocaine, and with possessing with the intent to distribute cocaine.  The conspiracy allegedly lasted throughout the month of March 2015.

The superseding indictment alleges that Lora possessed with the intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of cocaine, and conspired to do the same.  Lora also was charged with the unlawful use of a cellular telephone to facilitate the cocaine trafficking offenses, and with maintaining a drug premises.

Santos, who is scheduled to plead guilty on February 27, 2018, was not included in the superseding indictment.

The investigation was conducted by Homeland Security Investigations, with assistance from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Customs and Border Patrol, Pennsylvania State Police and the Hazleton Police Department.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip J. Caraballo is prosecuting the case. 

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

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 penalty for the most serious superseding offense is a minimum of five years and maximum of 40 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine.  Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the judge also 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.

# # #