Philadelphia Man Indicted For Armed Robbery
HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Dehaven Pollard, age 36, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was indicted by a federal grand jury for robbing a local restaurant and using a firearm in furtherance of robbery.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment alleges that Pollard and two unidentified accomplices drove from Philadelphia to Harrisburg to rob the Lancaster Brewing Company on November 12, 2016. The indictment also alleges that Pollard and his accomplices possessed a 32-caliber revolver and a Yugoslavian SKS rifle during, and in relation to, the robbery.
The case was investigated by the Swatara Township Police Department and the FBI Violent Crime Joint Taskforce. Assistant United States Attorney Chelsea Schinnour is prosecuting the case.
This case was brought as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership (“VCRP”), a district wide initiative to combat the spread of violent crime in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the VCRP consists of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies whose mission is to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes with firearms.
Indictments 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.
The maximum penalty under federal law is up to life of 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.
# # #