Two California Men Convicted Of Methampetamine, Cocaine And Heroin Trafficking In Monroe County
SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that two California men were convicted of methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin trafficking in Monroe County by a jury after a four-day trial held before U.S. District Court Judge Malachy E. Mannion in Scranton.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Reginald Braddy, age 33, and Fontaine Horton, age 37, both formerly of San Bernardino, California, were convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin in the Monroe County area between 2012 and 2014. In addition, Fontaine Horton was convicted of two counts of distributing methamphetamine in Monroe County in October of 2013.
The defendants were charged with obtaining high-quality methamphetamine from sources in California, along with heroin and cocaine, which they then distributed for profit in the Monroe County area over a two-year period.
The investigation was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department. Officers from the Orange County, California Sheriff’s Office, the Scranton Police Department, and Plainfield Township, Pennsylvania, Police Department assisted in the investigation.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Robert J. O’Hara and Francis P. Sempa.
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.
Fontaine Horton is facing a maximum possible penalty of 60 years’ imprisonment under federal law, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Reginald Braddy is facing a maximum possible penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release 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.
# # #