West Virginia Man Guilty Of Producing Child Pornography
SCRANTON—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Johnnie Gresham, age 39, of Charleston, West Virginia, pleaded guilty on May 17, 2018, before U.S. District Court Judge Robert D. Mariani, to producing and attempting to produce child pornography.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, Gresham admitted that he persuaded a minor to take and forward to him videos and photographs of the minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Gresham committed the offense between April 2017 and June 2017, in Susquehanna County and elsewhere. Gresham used a cell phone and the internet to commit the crimes.
Judge Mariani ordered a presentence investigation to be completed. Sentencing will be scheduled after the presentence report is filed.
Gresham was indicted by a federal grand jury in November 2017, as a result of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney Francis P. Sempa 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."
The maximum penalty under federal law for these offenses is 30 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. There is also a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. 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.
# # #