Convicted Bank Robber Indicted On Federal Escape Charges
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a grand jury in Williamsport has returned a one-count indictment today charging a convicted bank robber with escaping from federal custody while serving his federal bank robbery sentence.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Daniel Warren Gaudio, age 56, formerly of California, is charged with escape from the Capital Pavilion Residential Reentry Center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 9, 2013. At the time of the escape, Gaudio was serving a sentence of 110 months for robbing the Sovereign Bank Branch in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania on May 9, 2005, transporting a Ford pick-up truck stolen in Las Vegas, Nevada and used in the bank robbery, and robbing another bank in Kentucky.
On March 12, 2013, the United States Marshals obtained a criminal complaint and warrant for Gaudio’s arrest on the escape charge.
On April 19, 2013, Gaudio was apprehended in Venice, California in connection with new bank robbery charges. According to a federal criminal complaint filed in Los Angeles on April 22, 2013, Gaudio allegedly robbed a USBANK branch in Manhattan Beach, California.
The case was investigated by the United States Marshals Service. Prosecution of this matter has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney George J. Rocktashel, in coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.
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 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.