Skip to main content
Press Release

Harrisburg Man Convicted On Federal Charges Related To Gun Violence Investigations In City

For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that following a two-day jury trial before U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia H. Rambo, Carlos C. Hill, age 41, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon. The jury returned a verdict after three hours.

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Hill and co-defendant Elijah U. Brown, Jr., were indicted in September 2012 following stepped-up federal efforts to partner with Harrisburg police and the Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office to fight violent crime in Harrisburg. Hill and Brown were charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of a stolen firearm.

     The charges resulted from Hill brandishing a stolen firearm at a female victim in the 1600 Block of Park Street in Harrisburg on July 13, 2012. 

     The firearm was subsequently recovered by the Harrisburg Police Bureau.

     Hill faces a statutory minimum of 15 years imprisonment. A sentencing date for Hill has not yet been scheduled. Brown is scheduled for trial on April 1, 2013. 

     The case was investigated by ATF in coordination with the Harrisburg Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Meredith A. Taylor is handled the prosecution.

     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 particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is life imprisonment. 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