Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 05-13-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 8:21-cr-00237-RFR-SMB
Judge: Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Court: United States District Court for the District of * (* County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney: Matt Knipe
Description: Omaha, Nebraska criminal defense lawyer represented defendant charged with transportation of child porn.
In May 2019, the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office began investigating a CyberTipline Report that a Dropbox user had uploaded child pornography. Investigators identified Dezmin Meridith, age 27, of Columbus, Nebraska, as a suspect and determined that he had relocated from Omaha back to Columbus. Investigators contacted Meridith who admitted to purchasing packages of child pornography files on a chat application and then uploading them to Dropbox.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by United States Attorney’s Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS), Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.projectsafechildhood.gov.
This case was investigated by the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and the Omaha FBI's Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force
Outcome: Defendant pleaded guilty to count I of the Indictment and is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of 90 months; 10 years of supervised release with special conditions; $12,000 in restitution; and a $100 special assessment. The Court finds imposition will impair defendant's ability to make restitution and therefore does not impose the AVAA assessment. The Court finds indigency and declines to apply the additional JVTA assessment.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: