Federal Inmate Convicted of Assault with Intent to Commit Murder and Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury
The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Thomas C. Holloway, age 46, of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, was charged today with attempted income tax evasion for 2008.
A plea agreement was filed at the same time as the Information. In it, Holloway agreed to plead guilty to the offense and pay $80,000 in restitution to the IRS.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Holloway previously was employed by Spherion (an IT firm based in Mechanicsburg and formerly known as Intellimark and Technisource) between 2001 and 2009 and embezzled company funds which were not reported on his income tax returns. Holloway previously was charged by local authorities with theft by deception in connection with the embezzlements and was sentenced in 2010 in state court to probation and ordered to pay $125,000 in restitution to Spherion. The current tax charges allege that the tax loss to the IRS was $80,000 for the years 2003-2009.
The case was investigated by the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS and is assigned to Senior Litigation Counsel Bruce Brandler for prosecution.
Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentencing following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
In this particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is five years' 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.