Three Individuals Arrested For Conspiracy To Distribute 5,588 Bags Of 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 two-count indictment charging two Philadelphia men and a Williamsport women with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5,588 bags of heroin following their arrest by the Pennsylvania State Police on January 1, 2016 in Loyalsock Township, Lycoming County.
According to U.S. Attorney Peter Smith, the grand jury charged Stacy Donte Morgan, age 26, Samuel Darius Woodlyn, age 27, and Hadiyah Shadiah Bell-Evans, age 20 with conspiring to distribute and distribution of 100 grams or more of heroin. The indictment alleges that they utilized a rental vehicle and a motel room to store, transport and distribute heroin.
The federal investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Pennsylvania State Police, with the assistance of the Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney George J. Rocktashel has been assigned to the prosecution of this matter.
This case was brought as part of a district wide initiative to combat the nationwide epidemic regarding the use and distribution of heroin. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the heroin initiative targets heroin traffickers operating in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and is part of a coordinated effort among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
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.
# # #