FirstAlerts

Ohio Man Charged in Federal Court with Advertising Child Pornography

Adam Burley, 42, faces an unresolved federal charge in Massachusetts following his arrest.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 10:27 a.m. ET
According to official charging records released on Aug. 13, 2026, by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, 42-year-old Adam Burley of Columbus, Ohio, has been arrested and with one count of advertising child pornography in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. The matter is currently at the initial charging stage and remains pending and undecided, with Burley scheduled to make an initial appearance in federal court in Boston at a later date. According to the charging documents, Burley allegedly posted hundreds of messages sharing files depicting child sexual abuse material on the dark web since 2025. An initial onsite forensic preview of his devices allegedly revealed thousands of image and video files depicting child sexual abuse material. U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley and Acting Special Agent in Charge Jeff Grimming of Homeland Security Investigations in New England announced the charge as part of Project Safe Childhood. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Luke A. Goldworm. The details contained in the charging document are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. If convicted, the charge carries a statutory penalty of no less than 15 years and up to 30 years in prison, at least five years and up to a lifetime of supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 14:27current

    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.