FirstAlerts

Owsley County Man Sentenced to 60 Months for Receiving Child Sexual Abuse Material

Berlin Hollan of Booneville, Kentucky, was sentenced in federal court for receiving a sexually explicit image of a minor.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 11:06 a.m. ET
Developing · checked 1h ago

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 last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 20, 2026, 11:13 a.m. ET — checked 1h ago.

On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky announced that 52-year-old Berlin Hollan of Booneville, Kentucky, was on Wednesday to 60 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Robert Wier for receiving child pornography. According to court filings from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Hollan received an image of child pornography on September 13, 2024. Law enforcement officers located sexually explicit Facebook Messenger conversations between Hollan and a minor victim, during which Hollan received a sexually explicit image of a minor. Jason Parman, First Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and Olivia Olson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Louisville Field Office, jointly announced the sentence. The FBI conducted the investigation, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Justin Blankenship prosecuted the case on behalf of the United States as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide Department of Justice initiative launched in May 2006.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 15:06current

    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.