Carbondale Man Charged with Receiving Child Pornography
SCRANTON, PA—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a Criminal Information was filed on November 25, 2015 charging a 25-year-old Carbondale man with receiving child pornography.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, the Information alleges that Edward Jeter used a computer to download images of child pornography during November 2014 through August 2015.
The charge stems from an investigation by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
If convicted, Jeter faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a potential maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
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.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Sempa is prosecuting the case.
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 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 is 20 years of 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.