You are here

Justice News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Northampton Man Charged With Having Drugs On A Federal Installation

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that federal charges were filed Monday in Harrisburg against a Northampton, Pennsylvania man for having drugs and drug paraphernalia on a federal installation in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Paul Transue, Jr., age 51, was charged with possessing marijuana and cocaine on November 14, 2012 while on the grounds of the Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna (DDCS), New Cumberland. Transue, a civilian contractor, consented to the search of his vehicle after it had been stopped for speeding. A search of his car led to the recovery of cocaine and marijuana as well as a variety of drug use paraphernalia such as glass pipes, rolling papers, a razor blade and a straw. The amount of marijuana and cocaine recovered was consistent with possession for personal use, especially given the fact that paraphernalia for using the drugs was also recovered from Transue’s car.

     The investigation was handled by the DDCS Security and Emergency Services. Prosecution has been assigned to Assistant U.S. 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.

     In this particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is one year 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.

Updated April 9, 2015