You are here

Justice News

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Dauphin County Man Arrested For Drug Trafficking And Possession Of A Firearm

HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Khalid Fahide Carter, age 22, of Harrisburg was arrested yesterday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Capital City Safe Streets Task Force and the Harrisburg Bureau of Police.                       

Carter had his initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab on June 7, 2016 and was ordered detained.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Carter was indicted in May 2016 for distribution of cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on January 12, 2016.  During the drug deal, Carter allegedly possessed a .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Capital City Safe Streets Task Force and the Harrisburg Bureau of Police.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl F. Bloom.  

This case was brought as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership (“VCRP”), a district wide initiative to combat the spread of violent crime in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the VCRP consists of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies whose mission is to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes.

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 maximum penalty under federal law is life imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $1,250,000 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 June 8, 2016