Jamaican Citizen Charged With Illegal Reentry in Pennsylvania
Kenroy Watt, 50, was indicted by a federal grand jury on Sept. 4, 2026, for allegedly illegally re-entering the United States after a prior deportation. The charge is an allegation, and Watt is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 5:47 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 4, 2026, 5:47 p.m. ETFirst report
Jamaican Citizen Charged With Illegal Reentry in Pennsylvania
HARRISBURG – The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced on September 4, 2026, that Kenroy Watt, 50, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was indicted by a federal grand jury for illegally re-entering the United States after previously being deported.
According to U.S. Attorney Brian D. Miller, the indictment alleges that Watt illegally reentered the United States without proper authorization and was found in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on December 10, 2025. Watt was previously removed from the United States through Miami, Florida, on July 28, 2016, after a conviction for an aggravated felony.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Ford is prosecuting. The case is part of Operation Take Back America, a Department of Justice initiative.
The maximum penalty under federal law for this offense is 20 years in prison, a term of supervised release, and a fine. An indictment is an allegation; all persons charged are presumed innocent unless and until found guilty in court. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 21:52current
First published.
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 21:47current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.