Nicholson Man Charged with Producing Child Pornography
|U.S. Attorney’s Office February 14, 2013|
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a 33-year-old Nicholson resident has been charged with producing and attempting to produce child pornography.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, an information was filed Wednesday alleging that Alfred Kenvyn persuaded a 9-year-old girl to engage in sexually explicit conduct on a web cam between July and September 2012.
The charge against Kenvyn resulted from an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Blooming Grove, New York Police Department.
In a plea agreement that was also filed in the case, Kenvyn has agreed to plead guilty to the charge and prosecutors have agreed to recommend that Kenvyn be sentenced to 13 years in prison, to be followed by supervised release for life.
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.
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.