Criminal Immigration Charges Brought Against Two Illegal Aliens

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, announced today that charges in two unrelated cases were brought yesterday against the following persons by a federal grand jury in Scranton.

     Jose Efrain Martinez-Aguilar, a/k/a Carlos Oreana Benitez, age 48, a native and citizen of Honduras in the United States illegally, was charged in a one-count indictment alleging that Martinez-Aguilar, an alien previously arrested and deported, knowingly and unlawfully reentered the United States after having been convicted of an aggravated felony involving the trafficking of controlled substances.

     If convicted, Martinez-Aguilar, faces imprisonment of up to 20 years and a fine in the amount of $250,000. 

     Arturo Leal-Calderone, age 36, a native and citizen of Mexico in the United States illegally, was charged in a one-count indictment alleging that Leal-Calderone, an alien previously arrested and deported, knowingly and unlawfully reentered the United States on or before April 17, 2014, at an unknown place.

     If convicted, Leal-Calderone faces a term of imprisonment of up to two years of imprisonment.

     The investigations were conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Removal Operations (ERO) Philadelphia.  The cases are being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski.

     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.

    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.