(STL.News) – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment on June 16, 2020, charging Michael Laury, age 41, formerly of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, with additional offenses for a methamphetamine laboratory.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the superseding indictment charges Laury with managing a drug premises, a methamphetamine conspiracy, with giving a false statement to federal law enforcement officials. The charges stem from a methamphetamine laboratory that law enforcement officials shuttered at Laury’s residence in June 2017. Laury also is charged with lying to FBI agents about his knowledge of the methamphetamine laboratory.
The matter was investigated by the FBI, the Pennsylvania State Police, and the Wilkes-Barre Police Department. Assistant United States Attorney Phillip J. Caraballo is prosecuting the case.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. The Department of Justice reinvigorated PSN in 2017 as part of the Department’s renewed focus on targeting violent criminals, directing all U.S. Attorney’s Offices to work in partnership with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement and the local community to develop effective, locally-based strategies to reduce violent crime.
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 penalties under federal law for the most serious offense are a maximum 20 years of 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.