Sentencing delayed for woman tied to Pittsburgh bid-rigging case
Christine Kebr stands outside the Federal Courthouse as her attorney fields questions from the media Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014. She was sentenced to three years probation for her role in a bid-rigging scheme.
Photo by Philip G. Pavely | Tribune-Review
A federal judge on Tuesday agreed to reschedule the sentencing of a former Pittsburgh city employee so she can continue cooperating with the government in its investigation of a bid-rigging scandal.
Christine Kebr, 56, of Castle Shannon pleaded guilty in December to helping Arthur Bedway, 63, of Robinson defraud the federal government by claiming one of his companies, Alpha Outfitters LLC in Esplen, was a female-owned business. That allowed him to bid on a contract to install data terminals in city police cruisers.
Bedway, owner of Carnegie-based Victory Security, faces federal charges of bribery, conspiracy and mail fraud. He and the government have filed court motions delaying his trial so they can negotiate a plea bargain, the motions say.
Former Pittsburgh police Chief Nate Harper has said Bedway is a former friend but has denied involvement in bid-rigging. A federal grand jury on Friday indicted Harper on a conspiracy charge involving accounts at the Greater Pittsburgh Police Federal Credit Union and four charges of failing to file federal income taxes.
U.S. Attorney David Hickton has declined to say whether Harper will be charged in the bid-rigging investigation.
Federal prosecutors filed a motion Tuesday saying that Kebr is cooperating with the investigation and asked the judge to delay her sentencing “until her cooperation is complete.” They asked for her sentencing hearing to be scheduled on or after May 1. U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon granted the motion and moved the sentencing to May 15.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or email@example.com.
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.