Lancaster Man Charged With Obstruction Of Justice And Perjury
HARRISBURG- The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Angel Luis Carrasco-Rivera a/k/a Manuel Calcagno, age 54, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, was indicted on November 2, 2016, for obstructing justice and committing perjury.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, Carrasco-Rivera was charged with obstruction of proceedings and perjury in connection with his recent prosecution and conviction for mail fraud. The fraud prosecution involved Carrasco-Rivera obtaining more than $102,000 by filing false claims for unemployment compensation benefits from 2008 through late 2012. He was sentenced in June 2016 to serve 18 months in prison for that offense.
Today’s indictment alleges that during the official proceedings in federal court, Carrasco-Rivera lied about his identity to influence the court’s decision about the appropriate sentence for his mail fraud conviction.
The case was investigated by the United States Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Office of Labor Racketeering and Fraud Investigations. Prosecution has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney James T. Clancy.
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 for the perjury offense under federal law is five years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine; the maximum penalty for the obstruction offense is 20 years of imprisonment, 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.
# # #