Dauphin County Man Convicted Of Drug Trafficking And Possession Of A Firearm In Furtherance Of Drug Trafficking
HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Khalid Fahide Carter, age 22, of Harrisburg, was convicted by a federal jury of distribution of crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The three-day trial was held before Chief United States District Court Judge Christopher C. Conner in Harrisburg.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the jury returned the verdict after less than two hours of deliberation. The jury found that Carter distributed cocaine base, also known as crack cocaine, and possessed a .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime on January 12, 2016.
This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Capital City Safe Streets Task Force, the Harrisburg Bureau of Police, and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. Assistant United States Attorneys Daryl F. Bloom and Chelsea Schinnour prosecuted the case.
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 with firearms.
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 for drug trafficking is 20 years of imprisonment and for possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking is life 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.
# # #