Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Jonathan Andrew Edwards (Document 129)

Summary

Document 129, filed August 28, 2025, is the government's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Jonathan Andrew Edwards, Case No. 5:24-CR-73-FL-BM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division. The United States asks the Court to overrule the defendant's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report and impose a guideline sentence of 30 years. It states that the defendant pleaded guilty on February 13, 2025 to Count Three of the indictment, production of child pornography. The memorandum argues against the objections to the obstruction of justice enhancement, the enhancement tied to the age of the minor in Count Three, and the repeat and dangerous sex offender designation. It carries the signatures /s/ Charity L. Wilson and /s/ Erin C. Blondel.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Jonathan Andrew Edwards (Document 129).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-5-24-cr-00073-dkt-129-e-d-n-c-5ded7478b8/, SHA-256 4c35a1064a978100278f36432ca20ba04e565123c3ba568086604a0a0582acc2.

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

CASE NO. 5:24-CR-73-FL-BM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
MEMORANDUM
v.
Redacted
JONATHAN ANDREW EDWARDS

The United States of America, by and through the United States Attorney for

the Eastern District of North Carolina, respectfully submits this sentencing

memorandum in support of the government’s recommended sentence and to address

Defendant’s objections to the Presentence Investigation Report. The Defendant’s

objections and arguments ignore the overwhelming facts of this case and are

unsupported by and contrary to the Sentencing Guidelines and the relevant case law.

This Court should overrule the defendant’s objections and impose a guideline

sentence.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

It ended with an Indictment charging numerous child sexual exploitation

offenses; however, this investigation began with Defendant, a sworn law enforcement

officer, sexually harassing and groping an inmate of the Harnett County Detention

Center. On October 13, 2023, Krystal Jackson reported to the Harnett County

Sheriff’s Office that Defendant began harassing her when she was first booked into

the jail and continued to do so while she was housed there. Ms. Jackson reported

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 1 of 16
Defendant showed her a video of himself masturbating. He returned to her cell later

and showed her another video in which he was masturbating to ejaculation. When he

returned to her cell a third time, she requested a tablet. He brought her one and,

when he gave it to her, grabbed her breast.

The sheriff’s office decided to place Defendant on administrative leave.

Defendant was summoned to meet with Major G. McNeill. Defendant drove into the

parking lot, dumped his Google Pixel cell phone in a hollowed-out tube of a dumpster,

and then met with his supervisors. Major McNeill notified him that he was on

administrative leave and directed him to surrender his patrol car, badge,

identification card, security access card and assigned weapons. Major McNeill asked

him if he had his personal phone, and Defendant lied and said he had left it at home.

Lieutenant B. Strickland then drove Defendant home.

Major McNeill and Captain Woods collected Defendant’s personal cell phone

from the dumpster. It appeared to be powered off and was later found to have been

factory reset before it was hidden in the tube of the dumpster.

On October 18, 2023, Detective Gardner obtained a search warrant for

Defendant’s residence. Investigators found a box and a receipt dated in 2022 for the

Google Pixel phone. In a recorded interaction, when Defendant was asked if he had a

personal phone, he said no. Special Agent Ludwig told Defendant they found the

Google Pixel phone box and a receipt and asked where the phone was. Defendant said

he did not know where that phone was and denied remembering even purchasing it.

On October 26, 2023, Special Agent Allen applied for, and was granted, a

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 2 of 16
search warrant for Defendant’s Google account. In that account, Agent Allen found

about two images and 21 videos depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit

conduct.

Fourteen videos were a screen recording of live video chats on Omegle, a

website synonymous with child sexual exploitation. In them, Defendant appeared in

the upper-right-hand corner of the screen masturbating while children in the larger

part of the screen exposed their genitals, masturbated, or inserted foreign objects into

their genitals. Many recordings captured texts between Defendant and the children

in which he asked about their ages and directed them to perform various sexual acts

or expose parts of their body. The government’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to

dismiss or withdraw his guilty plea, filed at Docket Entry 114, shows just how young

those children appeared and describes more fully the Defendant’s horrifying

instructions for them to sexually abuse themselves.

The metadata for six of those videos was crisp enough for investigators to

determine when the video was made, and those six videos became the production

counts in the Indictment. Metadata shows they were recorded on February 28, 2022

(Count One); August 8, 2022 (Count Two); August 27, 2022 (Count Three); September

10, 2022 (Count Four); October 15, 2022 (Count Five); and November 5, 2022 (Count

Six). Despite retaining a digital forensics expert to review the Google data, 1

Defendant has offered no other creation dates.

1 [D.E. 75 at 3, 7].

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 3 of 16
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 29, 2024, Defendant was indicted on six counts of production of

child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e); one count of receipt of child pornography,

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b); and one count of possession of child pornography 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252(a)(4)(B). [D.E. 1]. Defendant then filed a slew of pretrial motions that alleged

inflammatory, baseless accusations of misconduct by ,a

State Bureau of Investigation agent, government counsel, and a state superior court

judge. [D.E. 36, 75, 81] In December, this Court granted his motion to suppress in one

respect and otherwise denied his motions, making no misconduct findings. [D.E. 85]

On February 13, 2025, Defendant pleaded guilty to Count Three of the

indictment, production of child pornography, [D.E. 92], which carries a maximum

penalty of 30 years’ imprisonment. Two months later, Defendant moved to withdraw

his guilty plea, claiming, with zero evidence and in total contradiction to his sworn

plea, that all fourteen Omegle video chats were AI deepfakes. Again this Court denied

his motion. [D.E. 123]

The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) details the Defendant’s guidelines

calculation under USSG §2G2.1. [D.E. 127]. His base offense level is 32, and U.S.

Probation has applied the following enhancements:

• a 4-level enhancement for the material involving a prepubescent minor or a

minor who has not attained the age of 12, USSG §2G2.2(b)(1)(A);

• a 2-level enhancement for the offense involving the commission of a sexual act

or sexual contact, USSG §2G2.1(b)(2)(A);

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 4 of 16
• a 2-level enhancement for the use of a computer, USSG §2G2.1(b)(6)(B);

• a 2-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, USSG §3C1.1; and

• a 5-level enhancement for being a repeat and dangerous sex offender pursuant

to USSG §4B1.5.

(PSR ¶¶ 39-47). Probation has decreased the offense level by 3 levels for acceptance

of responsibility, yielding a total offense level of 44, capped at offense level 43. (PSR

¶¶ 48-50). Defendant’s guideline range is life, capped by the statutory maximum of

360 months, or 30 years.

Defendant objects to most of those enhancements. He challenges the 2-level

obstruction enhancement, claiming that wiping his phone was unrelated to the

offense conduct. He argues that the government has not proven that the minor in

Count Two was under 12; therefore, a 4-level enhancement does not apply. And he

contests the repeat and dangerous sex offender designation, asserting that the

government has “no evidence that these interactions were on occasions different from

one another.” [D.E. 126].

ARGUMENT

The U.S. Probation Office has correctly applied the guidelines to Defendant’s

egregious offense conduct. His guidelines objections lack factual support and are

simply another attempt to minimize his culpability. This Court should overrule his

objections and impose a guidelines sentence: 30 years.

A. Legal Standard for Sentencing Guideline Enhancements

Relevant conduct includes “all acts and omissions committed…or willfully

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 5 of 16
caused by the defendant…that occurred during the commission of the offense of

conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid

detection or responsibility for that offense.” USSG §1B1.3(a)(1)(A). Because

production of child pornography is not an offense that groups pursuant to USSG

§3D1.2(d), expanded relevant conduct does not apply and this Court should consider

only the facts surrounding the offense of conviction, in this case Count Three. USSG

§1B1.3(2), (3).

The Government bears the burden of proving any sentencing enhancement by

a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Simmons, 143 F.4th 200, 213 (4th

Cir. 2025) (citing United States v. Henderson, 88 F.4th 534, 536 (4th Cir. 2023). The

Court’s factual determinations will only be disturbed for clear error. Id.

B. The Minor Child Depicted in Count Three Was under Twelve Years Old.

Defendant objects to the 4-level enhancement for an offense involving a minor

who had not attained the age of 12, pursuant to USSG §2G2.1(b)(1)(A). This Court

can judge for itself whether that child looks younger than a middle-schooler:

Her facial features and structure, her hairstyle (pigtails), and her lack of any breast

development or pubic hair all suggest this child is under 12 years of age. The

Government will be prepared at sentencing to provide the Court with the video of the

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 6 of 16
child’s video interaction with Defendant so the Court can determine the likely age of

this child.

Defendant objects that investigators originally estimated her age range at 10

to 12 years old. [D.E. 126 at 2] Investigators commonly give very conservative age

ranges—especially around age 12—because to trigger a statutory enhancement for

possession of child pornography, the government must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that the minor was prepubescent or under 12. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). The

standard at sentencing is preponderance of the evidence, however, and this Court as

factfinder can view her picture and judge whether she is under 12. That is black-

letter law; it is also especially fair in this case because Defendant’s choice of platform,

Omegle, has prevented investigators from identifying this child and offering her help.

At a minimum, the minor depicted in Count Three was under 16, nor does

Defendant argue otherwise. Defendant therefore merits at least a 2-level

enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2G2.1(b)(1)(B).

C. Defendant Obstructed Justice by Deleting Evidence on His Phone.

Defendant claims that “[n]o conduct related to his personal cell phone occurred

in the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the offense of conviction.” [D.E. 126]

Two levels should be added to the base offense level if “the defendant willfully

obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of

justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant

offense of conviction…and any relevant conduct.” USSG §3C1.1. This includes

conduct that occurred before the start of the investigation for the instant offense if

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 7 of 16
the conduct was purposeful and likely to frustrate the investigation or prosecution of

the offense. USSG §3C1.1 cmt. n. 1. Destroying or concealing material evidence

triggers this enhancement. Id. cmt. n. 4(D).

Defendant obstructed justice. Summoned to meet with HCSO brass, he factory

reset his Google Pixel phone and attempted to hide it from investigators. Then he lied

to investigators days later when he said he had no recollection of even purchasing

that phone and further disassociated himself with the device. The factory reset of his

phone erased all data from his phone. That action forced investigators to get a search

warrant for his cloud account that would have been linked to his phone to try to

recover the data he had deleted. In that account, investigators found evidence

constituting the basis of this indictment.

Two kinds of evidence connect Defendant’s Google account data—including the

contraband videos—to his wiped cell phone. First, three videos that Defendant was

charged with possessing 2 indicate that Defendant recorded them on his phone. One

is a 1:48 video, YouCut_20230404_063924821-1jb2p6kf05toi.mp4. It depicts

Defendant texting a minor child, on Omegle, while masturbating, naked. As the child

began fondling her genitals and masturbating, Defendant asked how old she was, and

she responded 14. At the end of the recording, Defendant navigated to his screen

recorder to end the recording. In the corner of the screen the words “Jonathan’s Pix..”

appears. The phone Defendant hid on the dumpster was a Google Pixel phone. During

two other videos, a banner notification alerted Defendant of motion on the porch,

2 Because of imprecise metadata.

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 8 of 16
apparently from a Ring Doorbell camera system. The notification appeared to be a

cell phone banner.

The Government will have all three recordings available at sentencing along

with screen shots for the Court’s review.

Second, other, noncontraband videos and images saved to Defendant’s Google

Cloud account appear to come from his cell phone. For example, the account saved

numerous pictures of Defendant at his home, wearing his uniform, with his children,

pictures of his dogs and family—the kinds of personal pictures people ordinarily take

and save on their cell phones.

Defendant’s Google account also preserved multiple videos of Defendant

utilizing Omegle to engage in sexualized conversations with other adults; three videos

show Defendant using his cell phone during the conversations. In two of the videos,

Defendant navigated to CashApp to pay young adult women for exposing their

breasts and genitals while he masturbated, and the home screen of his cellular device,

including the applications installed, is visible. In the third video, when Defendant

navigated to Snapchat to get one of his account names to pass along to the female,

the phone number for his Snapchat account is visible: it matches the same phone

number as the Google Pixel phone that Defendant attempted to hide. The

Government will have all three of these videos, in their entirety to show to the Court

at sentencing.

Thus, significant evidence indicates that Defendant’s Google Drive account

saved data—including videos—that Defendant produced and saved on his erased

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 9 of 16
cellular phone. But even if the Government did not have that evidence, Defendant’s

objection merely underscores why the obstruction enhancement applies. It’s true the

United States cannot confirm whether most of the contraband videos were saved on

his phone: he destroyed that evidence. It would be nonsensical to require the

government to prove, when seeking an obstruction enhancement, what was on a

device a defendant wiped.

The defendant cites no law supporting his argument. Instead, courts have

routinely upheld applying the obstruction enhancements when defendants have

erased or attempted to erase digital evidence. E.g., United States v. Cheatham, 601

F. App’x 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Malki, 609

F.3d 503, 511) (2nd Cir. 2010); United States v. Schwartz, 698 F. App’x 799, 803 (6th

Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (defendant deleted his Google account after learning he was

being investigated for child pornography); United States v. Flores, 802 F.3d 1028,

1047-48 (9th Cir. 2015) (defendant asked her cousin to delete her Facebook account);

United States v. Morris, 573 F. App’x 712, 728 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished)

(defendant directed clients to delete emails); see also United States v. Roads, 97 F.4th

1133, 1138 (8th Cir. 2024) (defendant was evasive with law enforcement about his

passcode and the contents of his phone and attempted to deactivate the application

he used to distribute child sexual abuse material).

D. Defendant Is a Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender under Settled Law.

Defendant objects to the 5-level enhancement applied pursuant to USSG

§ 4B1.5 for being a repeat and dangerous sex offender. Defendant argues the dates

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 10 of 16
the Government acquired for the videos do not reflect the dates of the interaction with

the minor children but, rather, the dates Defendant went back and edited the videos.

The Government must show that “on at least two separate occasions, the

defendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor.” USSG §4B1.5 cmt. n.

4(b)(i). Prohibited sexual conduct includes production of child pornography. USSG

§4B1.5 cmt. n. 4(A). An occasion of prohibited sexual conduct may be considered

regardless of whether it occurred during the instant offense or resulted in a conviction

for the conduct. USSG §4B1.5 cmt. n. 4(B)(ii).

Section 4B1.5(b)(1) “can be applied either to repeated abuse of a single minor

or separate abuses of multiple minors.” United States v. Cifuentes-Lopez, 40 F.4th

1215, 1220 (10th Cir. 2022). In a different context, the Supreme Court identified

factors that indicate whether events happened on different occasions, including (1)

proximity of time, evidence or lack thereof, of an uninterrupted spree of behavior; (2)

presence of intervening events; (3) proximity of location; (4) character and

relationship of the offenses. Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360, 369 (2022).

A sister circuit applied the Wooden factors and held the abuse of two victims

that occurred in the same day but at different times and in different rooms

constituted the basis for a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse of children

for USSG §2G2.2(b)(5). United States v. Bullock, --- F.4th ---, 2025 WL 2423493, at

*18 (2d Cir. Aug. 22, 2025). The court specifically found there were non-criminal acts

that separated the two sets of abuse and, while the acts were similar in nature and

motive, they were not part of a single overarching scheme. Id. at 18-19.

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 11 of 16
No evidence suggests that Defendant produced fourteen videos of child sexual

abuse material in one crime spree. The only metadata available (thanks, likely, to

Defendant’s obstruction) indicates that the videos were produced on different days

over several months in 2022. Despite retaining a forensics expert, Defendant has

provided no evidence showing that the videos were recorded at the same time.

The videos’ contents indicate that they were created at different times in

different places. Each child is obviously a different person. In the fourteen videos, he

wore four different colors of shirts—dark gray, light gray, red and black—and

sometimes no shirt at all. He recorded the videos in different locations: in one

background there is a door frame on the left side of the video; in another, a window

is above him, and in an nother he is in bed with a headboard behind him.

And Defendant’s argument defies logic. Investigators found fourteen videos

spanning 53:55 minutes depicting Defendant masturbating while directing children

to sexually abuse themselves. The idea that Defendant went on such an extreme child

sexual abuse spree in one sitting is ridiculous. And in at least three of the videos,

Defendant masturbates to the point of ejaculation. It is implausible that he

masturbated to ejaculation and then immediately then skipped to another child and

began masturbating to that child’s image too.

This Court should reject Defendant’s latest, preposterous attempt to minimize

his conduct and label him what the evidence proves he is: a repeat and dangerous sex

offender.

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 12 of 16
E. 30 Years Is the Sentence Sufficient but Not Greater Than Necessary to
Punish Defendant for His Egregious Crimes.

This Court is familiar with the relevant sentencing factors. They include the

defendant’s characteristics; the nature and circumstances of the offense; the need to

punish the instant offense, promote respect for the law, and to provide just

punishment for the offense; the need to afford adequate deterrence; and the need to

protect the public from the defendant’s future crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

As for the nature and circumstances of the offense, the seriousness of this

offense cannot be overstated. Defendant victimized fourteen minor children. When he

was connected to minor children on Omegle, he took full opportunity to exploit them

and have them expose their genitals, masturbate, and insert foreign objects into their

vaginas for his sexual pleasure. He would ask their age and when they would confirm

they were minors, Defendant was not deterred but kept exposing himself and asking

the minors to undress for him and engage in masturbation. His messages were not

just wrong; they were dirty, depraved, and remorseless.

Additionally, Defendant engaged in conversations with others who were

streaming child sexual abuse material. He confirmed he was “into” 13-year-olds or

younger with his preferred age and act being 12- to 13-year-old children

masturbating. In at least one of these videos, the individual streaming the child

sexual abuse material was streaming three videos at once depicting multiple

children. One of these depicted a known series, Maria of the Best Necklace series.

The harms to children because of sexual abuse have been well documented.

The presence of their abuse images on the internet fuels their harm and makes it

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 13 of 16
nearly impossible for those children to move forward and completely heal. Defendant

took advance of elementary-school-aged children to satisfy his sick sexual desires.

In addition, this Court should examine the history and characteristics of

Defendant. Id. What is true about Defendant is true of so many others convicted of

similar crimes. He had a job, an education and a family support system. There is no

evidence of childhood trauma, no major physical health conditions, no substance

abuse issues. Despite having so many opportunities and support and abilities,

Defendant chose to victimize the most vulnerable parts of our population. He has,

literally, no excuse for his conduct.

It is bad enough when members of the general public exploit children so

shamelessly. But Defendant was a sworn law enforcement officer. He was in a position

of trust in the community; he was someone families called when their children needed

emergency help. Instead of honoring that responsibility, he sexually harassed an

inmate, obstructed justice, and anonymously abused children online. His behavior

undermines public trust in police and tarnished the badge for all law enforcement. 3

Defendant’s guidelines objections are meritless. But if the Court were to

sustain Defendant’s objections to the PSR, the Government would ask for an

alternate variance sentence to reflect the number of children, the age of the children

involved, the repeated nature of this conduct and Defendant’s, seeming, total lack of

3 Indeed, journalists have documented how uniquely devastating child sexual abuse

by law enforcement officers is. Jessica Contrera et al., “The Post Investigated Cops
Accused of Sexually Abusing Kids. Here’s What We Learned.,” The Washington Post
(Dec. 19, 2024), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/12/19/police-
officers-child-sexual-abuse-investigation-explained/.
14

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 14 of 16
remorse. Thirty years is the sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to send

an unfortunately necessary message to Defendant, victims, and the public: Sexually

abusing children is a terrible wrong. Doing so as a law enforcement officer is

horrifying.

CONCLUSION

Despite swearing to protect the public and uphold the law, Defendant was

caught sexually harassing a female inmate and exploiting young children on Omegle

for his own sexual pleasure. He, rightly, faces a significant sentence for the harms

that he has created for these children. For the foregoing reasons, this Court should

overrule the defendant’s guidelines objections and impose a guideline range sentence.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August, 2025.

W. ELLIS BOYLE
United States Attorney

/s/ Charity L. Wilson /s/ Erin C. Blondel
CHARITY WILSON ERIN C. BLONDEL
Criminal Division Criminal Division
U.S. Attorney’s Office, EDNC U.S. Attorney’s Office, EDNC
300 North 3rd Street, Suite 120 150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2100
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
charity.wilson@usdoj.gov erin.blondel@usdoj.gov
Telephone: 919-628-9975 Telephone: 919-856-4458
NC Bar No. 31584 NC Bar No. 46977

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 15 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this 28th day of August, 2025 served a copy of the

foregoing upon counsel for the defendant in this action by email and by electronically

filing the same with the Clerk of Court via the CM/ECF system, which will send

notification of such filing to:

Elisa Cyre Salmon
Attorney for Defendant

W. ELLIS BOYLE
United States Attorney

Case 5:24-cr-00073-FL Document 129 Filed 08/28/25 Page 16 of 16

File and source

File: 129.pdf
Size: 214,398 bytes
SHA-256: 4c35a1064a978100278f36432ca20ba04e565123c3ba568086604a0a0582acc2
Our copy: 129.pdf
Original: No public link identified.