Source: United States Attorneys General
Headline: Hazleton Man Charged With Receiving Child Pornography
SCRANTON—The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that Michael Portanova, age 27, of Hazleton, was indicted on January 23, 2018, by a federal grand jury for receiving child pornography. The case was unsealed following Portanova’s initial appearance before United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that Portanova committed the offense between August 2017 and October 30, 2017, in Luzerne County. The indictment also alleges that Portanova used a computer and cell phone to commit the crime.
The indictment further alleges that Portanova committed the offense after having been convicted of dissemination and possession of child pornography in Luzerne County in 2014.
The case was investigated by Homeland Security Investigations and the Luzerne County District Attorney’s 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. 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.”
The maximum penalty under federal law for these offenses is 40 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. There is also a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. 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.
# # #