For Immediate Release
Harrisburg Man Pleaded Guilty to Federal Firearm Charge After Shooting at Officers During a Foot Pursuit
HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Reginald Barton, age 32, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania pleaded guilty yesterday before Chief U.S. District Court Judge Christopher C. Conner to a federal firearm charge.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Barton pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon as a result of a traffic stop in Harrisburg where Barton fled on foot from the police, fired one shot and then tossed the gun. Officers from the Harrisburg Bureau of Police recovered the firearm and determined that Barton possessed it after having previously been convicted of several felony offenses.
This case is being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Harrisburg Bureau of Police. This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.
This case was brought as part of the Violent Crime Reduction Partnership ("VCRP"), a district wide initiative to combat the spread of violent crime in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Led by the United States Attorney’s Office, the VCRP consists of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies whose mission is to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who commit violent crimes.
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.