Harrisburg Man Indicted For Possession Of Firearms And Distribution Of Crack Cocaine

HARRISBURG- The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Emerson Miller, age 31, of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was indicted on January 10, 2018, with four counts of distribution of crack cocaine, two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, and one count of possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that Miller possessed a firearm on September 29, 2016 and a second firearm, this one with an obliterated serial number, on July 30, 2017.  The indictment also alleges that Miller distributed and possessed with the intent to distribute, crack cocaine on April 10, 2017, April 20, 2017, May 4, 2017 and May 18, 2017. 

The case was investigated by the Harrisburg Police Department, the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott R. Ford 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 is 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.

# # #