FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Mission Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Failure to Register as Sex Offender

Joseph Running, 31, was sentenced to 13 months in prison and five years of supervised release for failing to update his sex offender registration.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 25, 2026, 12:52 p.m. ET
Developing · not yet checked for updates

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.

PIERRE – United States Attorney Ron Parsons announced on August 25, 2026, that U.S. District Judge Eric C. Schulte has Joseph Running, 31, of Mission, South Dakota, to 13 months in federal prison followed by five years of supervised release for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. The sentencing took place on August 24, 2026, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Dakota. Running was indicted by a federal grand jury in December 2025 and pleaded guilty on May 6, 2026. He was previously convicted of Abusive Sexual Contact in June 2020, which required him to register as a sex offender and update his registration within three business days of relocation, change in employment, or change in student status. In March 2025, Running updated his registration to reflect a residence in Rosebud, SD, but left that residence in September 2025 without updating his registration. An arrest warrant was issued, and he was arrested on November 18, 2025, in Rosebud. The case was brought under Project Safe Childhood, a Department of Justice initiative launched in May 2006 to combat child sexual exploitation and abuse. It was investigated by the United States Marshals Service and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Zachrison. Running was ordered to pay a $100 special assessment to the Federal Crime Victims Fund and was immediately remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 125 Aug 2026, 16:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.