New information postpones Dillon’s sentencing

By John W. Goodwin Jr.

The filing mentions $50,000 stolen months before the millions were taken.

YOUNGSTOWN — It’s been determined that Roger Dillon, 23, of Youngstown ran off with millions of dollars from an armored car company. Now it must be decided how much time he spends in prison.

Dillon, who admitted stealing about $8.4 million from AT Systems in Liberty Township, was set to be sentenced this week, but the court postponed that sentencing date. Now his attorney, Brian M. Pierce of Akron, is asking the court that Dillon receive between 45 and 57 months behind bars.

One new piece of information contained in Pierce’s most recent court filing is that the Nov. 26 theft of millions was not the first time Dillon had stolen money. In August 2007, the court filing states, Dillon stole a bag containing $50,000 — three months before the November theft. The court document, though, does not say from where the $50,000 was taken — or if was taken from AT Systems.

Dillon and his girlfriend, Nicole Boyd, 25, pleaded guilty to bank larceny, conspiracy to pull off the November scheme and taking the money out of state. Each faces up to 25 years in prison.

Dillon’s mother, Sharon Lee Gregory, 49, of Youngstown, could get up to 15 years after pleading guilty to charges that she conspired with the two and helped the couple make their getaway with the money to West Virginia.

Dillon had been employed by AT Systems for about nine months as a driver/messenger. He has said in court documents that he stole the cash and checks from a company building using another employee’s security code Nov. 26.

About $6.7 million in cash was taken, according to an FBI agent who detailed the allegations in court in January. The rest was in checks.

Pierce, in the court filing, said there are five unresolved sentencing issues that would affect the sentence given to Dillon: amount of the loss, relocation (to another jurisdiction) of fraudulent scheme or sophisticated means, loss of more than $1 million from a financial institution, an aggravating role in the offense, and whether Dillon abused a position of trust.

Pierce did not argue the first issue, conceding the amount lost was more than $7 million, but did deny the second, saying there was nothing sophisticated about Dillon’s plan to steal the money. He said the plan took less than 22 minutes and was simple when compared with similar crimes.

Pierce disputed the third issue concerning the monetary loss, saying it is covered in other areas of Dillon’s sentencing criteria and should not be counted double.

Pierce said the fourth criteria should not be counted against Dillon because he did not supervise anyone in the crime. He said Dillon and Boyd mutually agreed to commit the heist and Dillon’s mother merely assisted in getting a van to transport the stolen funds.

Pierce disputed the fifth issue simply by saying a security guard position is not a position of trust.

Pierce told the court in closing that, “thus in sentencing Mr. Dillon, this court must impose a sentence which is ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary.’”