Allentown Man Guilty Of Heroin Trafficking Conspiracy

SCRANTON—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Jesus Santos, age 37, of Allentown, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin before Senior U.S. District Court Judge James M. Munley.

According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, Santos admitted to conspiring with others to obtain and distribute between 400 and 700 grams of heroin (which equals approximately between 16,000 and 28,000 retail bags of heroin) in the Schuylkill-Luzerne County areas of Pennsylvania, during 2012 through 2016. Santos admitted to being a sub-distributor of heroin for Rhashean Strange, a/k/a “Chicago,” who headed-up the conspiracy. Strange previously pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing. Eleven people have been charged in the case. Eight have entered guilty pleas.

Judge Munley scheduled sentencing for September 5, 2017.

Santos was indicted by a federal grand jury in May 2016, as a result of an investigation by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, investigators from the Pennsylvania State Police, and Shenandoah Police. Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Sempa is prosecuting the case.

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.

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 40 years in prison, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. There is also a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison. 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.

# # #