Harrisburg Man Indicted For Possession Of Crack And Possession Of A Firearm In Furtherance Of Drug Trafficking

HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a federal grand jury in Harrisburg has indicted Jwane Johnson for possession with intent to distribute crack, possession of a handgun by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.      

According to U.S. Attorney Peter Smith, Johnson, a 28 year old resident of Harrisburg, allegedly attempted to distribute crack near the Allison Hill section of Harrisburg on December 8, 2015.  When the sale was interrupted by Harrisburg Police, he allegedly fled leaving behind a handgun.  Johnson was arrested on January 2, 2016 by Harrisburg Police.   

The matter was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives with the Harrisburg Police Department.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott R. Ford.   

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.

Indictments 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 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.

# # #