Tarentum man wants confiscated cash back so he can hire attorney
When a Tarentum man was sentenced in federal court last year, Tarentum police expected to get part of the $7,540 confiscated from him.
But the guilty man, Curtis Veasley, is asking a judge for the money back so he can hire an attorney to appeal his conviction.
Veasley, 36, formerly of 590 E. Seventh Ave., was charged in connection with an April 2010 drug raid, during which police said they found illegal drugs, guns and cash.
A federal grand jury indicted Veasley in 2012, and he pleaded guilty in January 2013. He was sentenced to about 12 years in prison. His appeal is pending.
Veasley is trying to get the money back so that he can use it to pay for an attorney. According to court records, he has twice asked the government to appoint an attorney for him, but the court has denied those requests.
A federal judge has not addressed his request to have the money returned.
Last week, a judge ruled the confiscated guns were to be sent to the police department; Chief Bill Vakulick is to destroy them.
The chief said Tarentum police had anticipated getting back nearly $6,800 — the money confiscated from Veasley minus about 10 percent for the federal government.
He wants to use the money for police car or computer upgrades instead of seeking tax dollars to pay for them.
Whether the borough gets the money will depend on the success of Veasley's appeal.
“We're hopeful,” Vakulick said.
Chuck Biedka is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.