Hanover Postal Carrier Pleads Guilty To Destruction Of Mail
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Stacie Ann Stevens, age 41, of Hanover, Pennsylvania was charged with destruction of mail in a criminal information filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg and pled guilty before Senior United States District Court Judge William C. Caldwell on March 19, 2015.
According to U.S. Attorney Peter Smith, between July and October, 2014, Stevens, a postal carrier, began opening greeting cards and other mail and stealing the cash and gift cards contained inside. The theft was discovered after residents complained about missing or torn mail. In October 2014, Stevens was caught on surveillance video using one of the stolen gift cards at a local store. If convicted, Stevens faces one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $100,000.
Stevens has resigned from the Postal Service. The Government has filed a plea agreement with the defendant which is subject to approval of the court. As part of the agreement, Stevens agreed to pay restitution to the victims.
This case is being investigated by the United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General and the Carroll Valley Borough Police Department and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl F. Bloom.
Anyone who believes they may be a victim or who has further information should contact Special Agent Michael Brennan, United States Postal Service, Office of Inspector General at 717-395-9515.
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.