Pike County Man Charged With Receiving And Distributing Child Pornography
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a 49-year-old Dingmans Ferry resident was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury in Scranton for receiving and distributing child pornography.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Richard A. Lewis, is charged with using a computer between January and May of 2013, to receive and distribute child pornography.
The indictment of Lewis stems from an investigation by special agents of Homeland Security Investigations and Provincial Police from Ontario, Canada.
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 internet safety education, please visit www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab "resources."
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Sempa.
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 mandatory minimum penalty under the federal statute is 15 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty is 40 years’ imprisonment, 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.