ShareThis Page

5 McKeesport residents charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl analogue

Jeff Himler
| Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2018, 8:12 p.m.

Five McKeesport residents are charged with conspiring to distribute a synthetic opioid that is an analogue of fentanyl.

Named as defendants in the five-count federal grand jury indictment returned Tuesday in Pittsburgh are Nathan Hampton, 29, Travis Robertson, 28, Leslie Jackson, 54, Sacha Nesbeth, 26, and her mother, Juliet Nesbeth, 45.

According to the indictment, Hampton, Robertson, Jackson and Sacha Nesbeth conspired to distribute methoxyacetyl fentanyl on Sept. 8, 2017.

Officials announcing the indictment didn’t indicate the amount of the substance involved in the case.

Sacha and Juliet Nesbeth are charged with using or maintaining a drug-involved premises.

Also, Hampton is charged with possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, and Robertson is charged with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert C. Schupansky is prosecuting the case as part of a long-term investigation by the FBI Greater Pittsburgh Safe Streets Task Force, which targeted a large-scale drug trafficking organization operating in Allegheny, Butler and Beaver counties.

Jeff Himler is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jeff at 724-836-6622, or via Twitter @jhimler_news.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.

click me