Two Previously Deported Aliens Charged With Illegal Reentry

HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that two previously deported aliens were indicted separately on January 29, 2020, by a federal grand jury for illegal reentry into the United States. These matters arose in counties throughout the District including Adams and York Counties.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, Jose Garcia-Ceja, age 30, of Mexico, was previously deported from the United States to Mexico in May 2011.  He is alleged to have illegally reentered the United States sometime after May 2011, and was found in the United States in Adams County, Pennsylvania after eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers.

Alvaro Hidalgo-Sanchez, age 39, of Mexico, was previously deported from the United States to Mexico in February 2013.  He is alleged to have illegally reentered the United States sometime after February 2013, and was found in the United States in York County, Pennsylvania after eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers.

Garcia-Ceja and Hidalgo-Sanchez face a maximum penalty of two years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine.  

These cases were investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).  Assistant United States Attorney Joanne Sanderson is prosecuting the cases.

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 guilt 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.

# # #