New York Man Indicted On Heroin Charge And For Possession Of Body Armor
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a New York man was indicted by a federal grand jury in Harrisburg on charges of possessing 2,500 bags of heroin and body armor during a traffic stop on September 17, 2014.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Terrence T. Byrd, age 37, New York, NY, was charged in a two count indictment with possessing heroin with the intent to distribute and with illegally possessing body armor. Byrd was allegedly stopped by the Pennsylvania State Police for a traffic violation on Interstate 81 in Lower Paxton Township. During a search of the vehicle, troopers recovered body armor and 2,500 bags of heroin. Byrd fled on foot when the contraband was discovered but was apprehended after a brief chase.
Byrd, if convicted, faces up to 20 years imprisonment on the heroin possession charge and a sentence of up to life imprisonment if convicted on the charge of illegally possessing body armor.
The matter was investigated by the Pennsylvania State Police, the Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Harrisburg Resident Office. Prosecution of the case has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney William A. Behe.
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.
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.