Harrisburg Man Charged With Four Additional Bank Robberies In Pennsylvania and New Jersey
HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a Harrisburg man who pled guilty to the December 9, 2014 robbery of the Mid Penn Bank on North Front Street in Harrisburg has been charged with four additional bank robberies.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Dylan Blum, age 22, has been charged in a four count Criminal Information that was filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg on Friday, July 10, 2015, charging him with the robberies of four banks in December of 2014 and January of 2015 in Northampton County, Pennsylvania and in New Jersey. Blum allegedly passed a threatening note to tellers at three of those robberies and attempted to rob another bank but was prevented by employees from entering that bank. Blum allegedly made off with a total of $5,788.00 from the three banks he was able to rob. Blum turned himself in to the Harrisburg Police department on January 3, 2015.
The government also filed a plea agreement in the case which is subject to the approval of the court. Blum is currently in custody.
The case was investigated by the Harrisburg Police Department and the Harrisburg Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney William A. Behe has been assigned to prosecute the case.
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 guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
For this case, the maximum penalty under federal law for each count is 20 years of 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.
# # #