SCRANTON — This is an official press release from the U.S. Department of Justice (USAO - Pennsylvania, Middle), published as received.

SCRANTON - The United States Attorney=s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Jemel Laquan King, a/k/a “Melo,” age 37, a resident of New York, was convicted of conspiracy, aiding and abetting a bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during the robbery.  The four-day trial was held before U.S. District Court Judge James M. Munley in Scranton.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the jury returned with the verdict of guilty after approximately two hours of deliberation.  King conspired with others to commit the November 26, 2014 armed robbery of the NBT Bank on Keyser Avenue in Scranton.  During the robbery, two robbers used firearms, restrained tellers, and threatened their lives.  The tellers were held at gun point, forced to open the vault and were handcuffed and left inside the vault.  Approximately $100,000 was taken during the robbery. 

Judge Munley has not scheduled a sentencing date for King; King will remained detained pending a sentencing hearing.

Those previously charged with conspiring with King to commit the robbery include Jule Futrell, age 46, Endicott, New York, and Dorian Whitehead, age 30, Binghamton, New York.  Both pled guilty.

The investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation - Scranton and Binghamton offices. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Michelle Olshefski and Todd Hinkley.

 

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 penalties in this case include 25 years’ incarceration, plus an additional minimum of 7 years’ incarceration for the use of the firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  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

           

# # #