Potter County Man Indicted For Distribution Of Prescription Opiates And Heroin

WILLIAMSPORT – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a federal grand jury in Williamsport returned a four-count Indictment charging a Galeton, Pennsylvania man with conspiracy to distribute, distribution, and attempted distribution of the prescription drugs, Oxycodone and Fentanyl, and heroin in Potter and Tioga Counties.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, on October 22, 2015, the grand jury charged David Piaquadio, age 58, Galeton, Pennsylvania, with distribution of Oxycodone pills and Fentanyl patches prescribed for him and other persons and covered by Medicaid and Medicare benefits.  The Indictment also charges him with conspiracy to distribute and attempted distribution of those substances, as well as distribution of heroin purchased in Williamsport with the proceeds from illegal sales of the prescription drugs.

The federal investigation was conducted by the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Pennsylvania State Police.  Assistant United States Attorney George J. Rocktashel has been assigned for prosecution.

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 sentencing judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The maximum penalty under federal law is 40 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the sentencing 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.

# # #