Harrisburg Man Indicted On Federal Firearms Charges
HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Johnnie Zeigler, age 37, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was indicted by a federal grand jury on a federal firearms charge.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, Zeigler was charged in a one count indictment for being a convicted felon illegally in possession of two loaded guns and ammunition. The charges arise out of an incident in Harrisburg where Zeigler was arrested and police seized a canvas bag containing a Remington Arms 22 LR Rifle, Harrington and Richardson .22 caliber revolver, and ammunition.
The investigation was conducted by the Harrisburg Police Department and the Harrisburg Resident Office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Assistant United States Attorney William A. Behe is prosecuting the case.
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.
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.
The maximum penalty under federal law for the drug charge is a 10-year term of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 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.
# # #