WILLIAMSPORT – 6/6/17 – A federal judge wants the U.S. Postal Service to do a better job of screening prospective employees.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann on Tuesday told Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean A. Camoni to advise the Postal Service its screening process should go back more than five years.
The judge voiced his opinion after sentencing Lisa Belawske, 52, of Canton, to four months in prison followed by two years’ probation.
She had pleaded guilty in February for misappropriating $12,322 while postmaster in relief in Sylvania, Bradford County, between October 2105 and June 2016.
The thefts occurred by cashing 66 postal money orders and taking cash.
Had the Postal Service done a better job of screening it would have discovered Belawske had five prior convictions for fraudulent activity in Bradford County and Colorado, he said.
Read more at Penn Live – Prior Justice Department Charges are below.
Canton Woman Charged With Misappropriation Of Postal Funds
WILLIAMSPORT – 2/6/17 – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Lisa Belawske, age 53, of Canton, Pennsylvania, was charged today in a criminal information with misappropriation of postal funds by a postal employee.
According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, the information alleges that Belawske misappropriated over $12,000 between October 2015 and June 2016.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Postal Service, Office of the Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean A. Camoni is prosecuting the case.
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 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 10 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.