Man Indicted for Robberies of First National Bank in Loganton and Two Banks in Somerset and Cambria Counties
|U.S. Attorney’s Office September 16, 2013|
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced the return of a five-count superseding indictment by a federal grand jury in Williamsport charging Corbin Will, age 40, of Garrett, Pennsylvania, with robbing and conspiring to rob the First National Bank in Loganton, Pennsylvania; an M&T Bank branch in Tyrone, Pennsylvania; and the 1ST Summit Bank in Salix, Pennsylvania, using a dangerous weapon.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, the superseding indictment alleges that Will aided and abetted Nicole Lynn Durst in robbing the First National Bank of $3,697 on May 31, 2012. The superseding indictment also alleges that Will and Durst conspired to rob the three Pennsylvania banks between May 3, 2012 and May 31, 2012.
On April 12, 2013, Durst entered a guilty plea to robbery and conspiracy charges before United States District Judge Matthew Brann, and she is in custody pending sentencing. Will is in custody on related bank robbery charges pending in West Virginia and Maryland.
The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Pennsylvania State Police and prosecution of this matter has been assigned to Assistant United States Attorney George J. Rocktashel.
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 guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 90 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, 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.