United States Attorney's Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania
March 20, 2015
Carlisle Barracks Army Contractor Charged With Theft Involving Misuse Of Credit Cards
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, announced that, on March 18, a federal grand jury in Harrisburg indicted Scott J. Robinson, of Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, charging him with theft of government property.
According to the United States Attorney Peter Smith, the indictment alleges that Robinson was a civilian contractor performing landscaping and lawn care work at the U.S. Army Garrison (War College), Carlisle Barracks, in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Robinson was given access to four government credit cards, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) to the U.S. Army to purchase fuel for government-owned vehicles used by the defendant to perform his responsibilities under the contract. Robinson allegedly used the credit cards to fuel his own personal vehicle. Between February and July, 2014, Robinson allegedly purchased fuel and other unauthorized items in the amount of approximately $3,602.
The case was investigated by the GSA Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Zubrod has been assigned to prosecute the case.
Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
In this case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 15 years imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 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.
