Due to the lapse in appropriations, Department of Justice websites will not be regularly updated. The Department’s essential law enforcement and national security functions will continue. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.

You are here

Justice News

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

Friday, November 15, 2013

Former Vice President At Harrisburg Area Community College Pleads Guilty

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Nancy Rockey, age 55, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty Thursday to wire fraud before U.S. District Court Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner.

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Rockey was employed by Harrisburg Area Community College (HACC) from 1980 until her resignation in February 2012. At the time of her resignation, Rockey was Vice-President of the Harrisburg campus and Vice-President of College and Community Development. 

     In October 2013, Rockey was charged with using a credit card issued by HACC, to make online purchases of Target gift cards which she then used to purchase non-work-related items for herself, her family, and her friends. Rockey then created bogus invoices, later submitted to the HACC Finance Office, to conceal the unauthorized purchases.

     Rockey is charged with purchasing $228,000 worth of gift cards with her HACC credit card.

     The investigation was conducted by the FBI and the Dauphin County Criminal Investigations Division. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph J. Terz.

     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 case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 20 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.

Updated April 9, 2015