Monroe County Man Pleads Guilty To Heroin Trafficking Conspiracy
SCRANTON—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a Monroe County man connected to a heroin trafficking ring that operated in Monroe County and elsewhere during 2012 through March 2015, pleaded guilty today before Senior U.S. District Court Judge James M. Munley in Scranton.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, William Young, age 36, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine. Young admitted to traveling to New Jersey on several occasions to obtain a total of more than 80 grams of heroin, which is equivalent to approximately 2600 retail bags of heroin, for distribution to others in the Monroe County area.
Young was indicted by a federal grand jury in Scranton in March 2015, as a result of an investigation by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigators from the Pennsylvania State Police, and local police in Monroe County.
Judge Munley ordered a presentence investigation to be completed, and scheduled sentencing for April 12, 2016. Young faces a potential maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Sempa 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.
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.
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.
# # #