Five Monroe County residents and two men from California have been indicted by a federal grand jury in Scranton on criminal conspiracy charges in connection with the distribution of methamphetamine in the county.
The U.S. Attorneys Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced the indictments on Monday, stating the alleged distribution occurred between 2013 and 2014.
According to U.S. Attorney Peter Smith, the indictment, returned by the grand jury in April, charges the seven defendants with a methamphetamine trafficking conspiracy in which they obtained high-quality methamphetamine from sources in California that they then distributed for profit in the Monroe County area over a two-year period.
Charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine are the following individuals:
Reginald Braddy, 31, San Bernardino, Calif.; Fontaine Horton, 35, San Bernardino, Calif.; Scott Borushak, 51, Sciota; Emmanuel Tucker, 38, Stroudsburg; Fred Baumgartner, 33, Kresgeville; Anthony Ianuale, 42, Effort; and Jeanine Altemose, 53, Stroudsburg.
In addition to the conspiracy charge, the indictment also charges Horton, Borushak, Tucker and Ianuale with distributing methamphetamine. Altemose is charged with maintaining drug-involved premises for allowing methamphetamine to be stored and distributed from her residence. Six of the defendants are now in custody while Altemose is out on bail.
The investigation was conducted jointly by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Pennsylvania State Police, Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department and Stroud Regional Police Department.
Prosecution is assigned to Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. O'Hara.
The maximum penalty under the federal statute in this case is imprisonment for 20 years, 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.