(STL.News) – The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Jonathan Brownlee, age 42, of Long Pond, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty on July 16, 2020, before U.S. District Court Judge Malachy E. Mannion, to possessing child pornography
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, Brownlee admitted that he used a laptop computer to possess and access images of child pornography. Between August 2017 and April 10, 2018, in Monroe County. Brownlee possessed the child pornography while serving a term of supervised release for a previous conviction for receipt and distribution of child pornography.
Judge Mannion ordered a presentence investigation to be completed. Sentencing will be scheduled at a later date.
The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Probation 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.
The maximum penalty under federal law for the offenses is 20 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. There is also a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment because of Brownlee’s prior conviction for a child pornography crime. 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.