ShareThis Page
Home

5 more get prison terms for roles in region's Ecstasy rings

| Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2003

Five more men have received prison sentences for their participation in major Ecstasy rings that operated in western Pennsylvania.

The three rings in the region, which did not work together but were loosely connected, distributed several million pills in Pittsburgh, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Penn State University and schools in several other states, federal prosecutors said.

The five, who are among more than 30 individuals who entered guilty pleas in the case, are:

  • Todd J. Mihalko, 25, of Minnesota Street, Greenfield, who was sentenced to seven years, three months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release.

  • Jason Hornung, 24, of Harrisburg, sentenced to two years, six months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.

  • Brendan Gilmartin, 32, of Manchester, N.H., sentenced to two years, 11 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Gilmartin served as the New Hampshire outlet for one of the rings, prosecutors said.

  • Brian Murray, 27, of Indiana, Pa., sentenced to one year in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and fined $1,500.

  • Armand Taormina, 30, of Norristown, Montgomery County, sentenced to three years, 10 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release.

    Prosecutors said Taormina twice traveled from Indiana, Pa., to the Netherlands to purchase $380,000 worth of drugs.

    Pittsburgh was a key distribution point in the multimillion-dollar, international drug-selling scheme, prosecutors said.

    Federal authorities have said the city is attractive because nearly two dozen colleges and universities are within easy driving distance — providing a large number of young people who are the primary users of the rave drug.

  • 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 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