Postal Employee Pleads Guilty To Theft Of Mail

 HARRISBURG – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a Lower Paxton Postal employee, Candy Ehler, age 51, of  Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, pled guilty on March 29, 2021, before U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia H. Rambo to three counts of theft of mail by an employee.

According to Acting United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, on August 2, 2019, the United States Postal Service was notified that a medication package had not been received by its intended recipient. A pattern of missing/stolen medication packages containing opioid based controlled substances that required signature confirmation of receipt was confirmed.  These packages were attempted to be delivered by the assigned mail carrier, but were returned to the Lower Paxton Post Office due to the intended recipients not being at their residence.  Once returned to the Post Office, video surveillance revealed Postal Carrier Ehler, removing three controlled substance medication packages that were not on her primary route.  Ehler did not have a request for second delivery attempt, and the intended recipients never received their medication.

The charges stem from an investigation by the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General and Department of Veteran’s Affairs Office of Inspector General.  Assistant United States Attorney Daryl F. Bloom is prosecuting the case.

A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the court after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Ehler is facing a maximum of 15 years of incarceration and a $750,000 fine.  Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the court 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.