GrimyTimes.com - The Largest Criminal Database

Douglas DeHaven, False Statements, Pennsylvania 2019

Monroe County Man Pleads Guilty to Making Multiple Straw Purchases of Firearms

A 35-year-old resident of East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, has pleaded guilty to a federal charge of making false statements in connection with the purchases of multiple firearms.

Douglas DeHaven, 35, of East Stroudsburg, Monroe County, pleaded guilty on January 11, 2019, before Senior United States District Court Judge James M. Munley.

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, DeHaven admitted to providing false information to federally licensed firearms dealers regarding the purchases of 14 firearms between January 5, 2018, and February 11, 2018.

Two of the firearms were purchased from Bella Mia Jewels in Tannersville, Monroe County; nine of the firearms were purchased from Dunkelberger’s Sports Outfitters, in Brodheadsville, Monroe County; and three of the firearms were purchased from Dunkelberger’s Sports Outfitters, in Stroudsburg, Monroe County.

A sentencing date for DeHaven is scheduled for April 18, 2019.

This matter was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. O’Hara is prosecuting the case.

This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program that has been historically successful in bringing together all levels of law enforcement to reduce violent crime and make our neighborhoods safer for everyone.

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 these offenses is 10 years’ 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.

Key Facts

🔒 Get the grimiest stories delivered weekly. Subscribe free →

Browse More

All Pennsylvania Cases →All Districts →


Posted

in

by