Minnesota Man Indicted For Distributing Fentanyl Resulting In Death
SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Aaron Broussard, age 26, of Hopkins, Minnesota, appeared today before United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick in Scranton to face charges that he distributed fentanyl, a Schedule I controlled substance, resulting in the death of another.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, Broussard was indicted on December 6, 2016 by a federal grand jury sitting in Scranton. Broussard was arrested on December 6, 2016, in the District of Minnesota and today he was ordered detained pending trial.
The case was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Department of Homeland Security. Assistant United States Attorney Michelle Olshefski is prosecuting the case.
This case was brought as part of a district wide initiative to combat the nationwide epidemic regarding the use and distribution of heroin. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the Heroin Initiative targets heroin traffickers operating in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and is part of a coordinated effort among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit heroin related offenses.
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 guilty 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 this offense is life imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $1,000,000 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.
# # #