Richmond man sentenced to 10 years for distributing child sexual abuse material
Randon Alexander Sprinkle, 31, was sentenced on Sept. 3, 2026, in federal court for sending a video depicting child abuse to an undercover FBI agent.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 4:50 p.m. ET
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.
Earlier reports
Sep 4, 2026, 4:50 p.m. ETFirst report
Richmond man sentenced to 10 years for distributing child sexual abuse material
A Richmond man was sentenced on September 3, 2026, to 10 years in prison for distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Court documents state that on May 22, 2025, Randon Alexander Sprinkle, 31, used a dating app to contact an undercover FBI agent posing as the father of a nine-year-old boy. Sprinkle moved the conversation to Telegram, sent a video depicting adults abusing a minor, and expressed interest in traveling to Washington, D.C., to sexually abuse the purported child.
On October 16, 2025, FBI agents searched Sprinkle's residence and seized two laptops and a cellphone. According to the announcement by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Theophani K. Stamos and FBI Special Agent in Charge Ian Kaufmann, Sprinkle's cellphone contained 43 CSAM files and one of the laptops contained two additional files, including depictions of toddler abuse. U.S. District Judge Roderick C. Young imposed the sentence. The case was prosecuted under Project Safe Childhood, a Department of Justice initiative.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 20:52current
First published.
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 20:50current
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.