Skip to main content
Press Release

York Man Indicted For Producing Child Pornography

For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a federal grand jury sitting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania returned a superseding indictment yesterday against Daniel Curran, age 40, of York.  The superseding indictment charges Curran with Production of Child Pornography, Receipt of Child Pornography and Possession of Child Pornography.

     According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Curran sexually assaulted a nine year old boy on multiple occasions and recorded the assaults of the child.  In addition, the FBI located over 40,000 images of child pornography on Curran’s computer and thumb drives.  Curran also purchased and received dozens of videos containing child pornography through the mail.

     If convicted, Curran faces a maximum sentence of up to 70 years imprisonment, a mandatory minimum of 15 years imprisonment on the Production offense and a 5 year mandatory minimum on the Receipt offense, as well as a $750,000 fine.

     This investigation was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Northern York County Regional Police Department.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Meredith A. Taylor.

     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.

     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