Cumberland County man guilty of possession of child pornography

Child Pornography

HARRISBURG — The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Gary Stinson Smith, age 60, of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, plead guilty today before United States District Court Judge John E. Jones, III, to possession of child pornography.

According to United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler, Smith admitted to possessing images depicting child pornography. After obtaining a search warrant, law enforcement officers searched the defendant’s computer in November 2015 and located images and movies containing child pornography.

This case was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Daryl 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 http://www.usdoj.gov/psc For more information about internet safety education, please visit http://www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab “resources.”

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 for this offense is 10 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a $250,000 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.

Source: United States Attorney Bruce D. Brandler Middle District of Pennsylvania