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

HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Taashaun Mansfield, age 22, Johnny Quinones, age 27, Michael Windham, age 20, and Antonio Godbolt, age 34, all of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were indicted on November 4, 2020, by a federal grand jury on firearms charges.  The case was unsealed following the arrest of the defendants.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that Mansfield, Quinones, Windham, and Godbolt engaged in a conspiracy between July 2020 and August 2020, where Mansfield purchased firearms by falsifying records that he was the true purchaser of such firearm.  It is further alleged that after false statements were made to federally licensed firearms dealers, the guns were then transferred to convicted felons, Quinones and Godbolt, or those with charges pending, Windham. 

“At this precise moment of increased gun violence in the city of Harrisburg, our strong partnerships between federal, state and local law enforcement have never been more important,” said U.S. Attorney Freed.  “Collectively, we will not waver from our mission of taking illegal guns off the streets and prosecuting those who involved in their purchase and trafficking.”

“ATF has a zero-tolerance policy for straw purchasers who acquire firearms from a federal firearms licensee for someone who is either ineligible to purchase a firearm or wishes to conceal his/her identity,” said Matthew Varisco, Special Agent in Charge of ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division.  “ATF remains committed to removing those offenders who put these guns in the hands of criminals. We will continue to work with our partners at all levels to make our communities safer.”

The case was investigated by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Harrisburg Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Consiglio 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.

This case is part of Project Guardian, the Department of Justice’s signature initiative to reduce gun violence and enforce federal firearms laws.  Initiated by the Attorney General in the fall of 2019, Project Guardian draws upon the Department’s past successful programs to reduce gun violence; enhances coordination of federal, state, local, and tribal authorities in investigating and prosecuting gun crimes; improves information-sharing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives when a prohibited individual attempts to purchase a firearm and is denied by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), to include taking appropriate actions when a prospective purchaser is denied by the NICS for mental health reasons; and ensures that federal resources are directed at the criminals posing the greatest threat to our communities.

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 for this offense is ten 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.

 

# # #