U.S. Attorney's Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania
(717) 221-4482
April 16, 2015

Harrisburg Man Charged with Federal Drug and Firearms Offenses

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Daleo G. Powell, 32, of Harrisburg, was indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Harrisburg. The indictment charges Powell with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the charges are a result of an initial investigation by Harrisburg Police in December 2014 that allegedly resulted in Powell being found in possession of a loaded firearm and nine bundles of heroin on 15th Street in Harrisburg, PA, after having previously been convicted of several felony offenses. At the time of Powell’s arrest, he allegedly had an active warrant for his arrest, was driving with a suspended license, and had previous felony convictions.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Harrisburg Police Bureau. As part of an ongoing cooperative effort by federal and local law enforcement, the case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.

The maximum penalty under federal law is life imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. 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.

This content has been reproduced from its original source.