Federal Inmate Convicted of Assault with Intent to Commit Murder and Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury
The United States Attorney’s Office announced the filing yesterday of a one-count information charging Raymond George, age 65, with illegal transportation of hazardous materials in connection with his operation of George Welding & Supply in Montoursville, Pennsylvania.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the information alleges that from January 2001 through January 2012, George fraudulently certified that cylinders containing compressed gases used in the welding industry were properly tested and found to be safe. The information alleges that George’s business was not authorized to test cylinders, but that George applied false markings to the cylinders which certified that they had in fact been tested. He then leased the fraudulently marked cylinders to his customers.
The government also filed a plea agreement with the defendant which must be approved by the Court.
If convicted of the offense charged in the information, George faces a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a supervised release term of three years.
The case was investigated by the United States Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations. Prosecution has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney George J. Rocktashel.
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.