HARRISBURG—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that a Franklin County man was taken into custody on charges of production, distribution and possession of child pornography.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, late yesterday a grand jury in Harrisburg indicted Martin Allen Mentzer, age 44, for allegedly producing child pornography in his home by using a 13 year old boy to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing the visual depictions of the activity. The conduct allegedly took place during a period beginning in October 2014.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl F. Bloom.

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.”

Indictments 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 60 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.