Williamsport Man Charged with Drug Trafficking and Unlawful Possession of Ammunition
WILLIAMSPORT – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Hakim Handy, age 34, of Williamsport, Pennsylvania was indicted on October 12, 2017, by a federal grand jury for conspiring to distribute heroin and crack cocaine, the distribution of heroin, and the unlawful possession of ammunition.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the indictment alleges that Handy sold heroin on January 9 and 15, 2015, and possessed with the intent to distribute crack cocaine and heroin on January 16, 2017, in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The indictment also alleges that Handy unlawfully possessed 24 rounds of .44 caliber Remington ammunition.
The case was investigated by the Williamsport Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Alisan VanFleet 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 to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit heroin related offenses.
Indictments 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.
The maximum penalty under federal law is life 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.
# # #