You are here

Justice News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 8, 2013

Lebanon City Man Charged Federally With Enticement And Child Pornography

     The United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District Pennsylvania announced the indictment today by a federal grand jury in Harrisburg of Lebanon City man for child pornography offenses.

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Howard D. Davis, age 57, is charged with allegedly enticing a fourteen-year-old to engage in sexually explicit activity and requesting that these sexual images be sent through the internet. The fourteen-year-old was, in reality, an undercover officer with the Nebraska State Police. A subsequent search warrant executed at Davis’s address uncovered a computer with alleged child pornography which Davis distributed to others over the internet.  

     The case was investigated by the United States Postal Inspectors in conjunction with the Nebraska State Police and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Prosecution is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Michael A. Consiglio.

     Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

     A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

     In this particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is life imprisonment for Davis and a term of supervised release following imprisonment and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

Updated April 17, 2015