Getaway Driver In The Robbery Of A Dunmore Bank Pleads Guilty
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Vanessa Ramos, age 23, of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty today to aiding and abetting the robbery of a Dunmore bank before Senior United States District Court Judge James M. Munley.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Ramos appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and admitted that she acted as a getaway driver for Romeal Price in the robbery of the Pennstar Bank, 1230 O’Neill Highway, Dunmore, Pennsylvania, of approximately $11,000 on June 28, 2013. At the time of the bank robbery, Price was a fugitive following his escape from the Catholic Social Services Residential Reentry Center on June 18, 2013. Price had been housed there while completing the remaining few months of a 15-year federal prison sentence from 2001. Following the bank robbery, Price fled to New York City. On July 17, 2013, deputies of the United States Marshals Service arrested Price in a New York City apartment without incident. On September 6, 2013, Price, age 36, appeared in Federal Court in Scranton and admitted to the escape and bank robbery charges.
The case was investigated by the United States Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Dunmore Police Department. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney John Gurganus.
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.