You are here

Justice News

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, July 25, 2018

New Cumberland Man Charged With Receiving Child Pornography

HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Earl T. Cook, Jr., age 54, of New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, was charged in a criminal information on July 24, 2018, with receipt of child pornography. 

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the information alleges that Cook received child pornography over the internet between October 2014 and March 2015.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney James T. Clancy is prosecuting the case.  

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys' Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit  www.usdoj.gov/psc For more information about internet safety education, please visit  www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab "resources."

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

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

The maximum penalty under federal law for the receipt of child pornography charge is 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  That charge carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 5 years.  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 July 25, 2018