Harrisburg Man Convicted Of Possession Of Crack And Of A Firearm In Furtherance Of Drug Trafficking
HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Jwane Johnson, age 28, of Harrisburg, was convicted by a federal jury of possession with intent to distribute crack, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. The two-day trial was held before United States District Court Judge William W. Caldwell in Harrisburg.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the jury returned the verdict after approximately two hours of deliberation. The jury found that Johnson attempted to distribute crack near the Allison Hill section of Harrisburg on December 8, 2015 and when the sale was interrupted by Harrisburg Police, he fled leaving behind a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. He was later arrested near the same area on January 2, 2016, while in possession of crack cocaine that the jury found he intended to distribute.
The matter was investigated by the Harrisburg Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Scott R. Ford and Joseph J. Terz.
This case was brought as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership (“VCRP”), a district wide initiative to combat the spread of violent crime in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the VCRP consists of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies whose mission is to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes with firearms.
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.
The maximum penalty for this offense is up to life in prison, 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.
# # #