DOJ-OGR-00010571.jpg
798 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
798 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a significant prison sentence (360 to 660 months) for a defendant convicted of sexually exploiting underage girls. It refutes the defendant's arguments for a lighter sentence by citing legal precedents (Stinson, Sash) that prioritize the plain text of sentencing guidelines over conflicting commentary. A footnote dismisses the defendant's comparison of her potential sentence to that of Epstein's as a flawed argument based on different guideline structures.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Parkins |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation United States v. Parkins, 935 F.3d 65, 67 (2d Cir. 2019).
|
|
| Sash |
Mentioned as a party in a case cited as Sash, 396 F.3d at 522.
|
|
| Stinson |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 45 (1993).
|
|
| Bowles |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945).
|
|
| The defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal discussion, convicted of sexually exploiting multiple underage girls and facing a sentencing...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in a footnote as a point of comparison for sentencing ranges, as claimed by the defendant.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case citations United States v. Parkins and Stinson v. United States.
|
| Seminole Rock & Sand Co. | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945).
|
| The Court | government agency |
Referenced as the body that should impose a sentence on the defendant.
|
| U.S.S.G. | government agency |
United States Sentencing Guidelines, mentioned in a footnote regarding Amendment 615 and sentencing structures.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The defendant was convicted of sexually exploiting multiple underage girls.
Relationships (1)
The defendant claims she would face the same sentencing range that Epstein would face, an argument which is disputed in a footnote.
Key Quotes (3)
"akin to an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rules,"Source
— United States v. Parkins
(Describing the nature of Guidelines commentary.)
DOJ-OGR-00010571.jpg
Quote #1
"inconsistent with the regulation."Source
— Stinson v. United States
(Stating that Guidelines commentary does not control when it is inconsistent with the regulation.)
DOJ-OGR-00010571.jpg
Quote #2
"We need not resort to background commentary interpretations when the language of the Guidelines is plain."Source
— Sash
(Quoted to support the argument that the plain text of the Guideline should control over commentary.)
DOJ-OGR-00010571.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,394 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 36 of 55
quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Parkins, 935 F.3d 65, 67 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Sash). And even when Guidelines commentary is explanatory and binding, it is “akin to an agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rules,” and therefore does not control where it is “inconsistent with the regulation.” Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 45 (1993) (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)). If the Guidelines commentary were flatly inconsistent with the plain text of the Guideline itself—because the Guideline squarely applies where the commentary says it should not—the Guideline itself would control. See Sash, 396 F.3d at 522 (“We need not resort to background commentary interpretations when the language of the Guidelines is plain.”).
Finally, the defendant’s argument that the public does not need to be protected from her is an available argument under § 3553(a), but it is not a justification for deviating from the text of the Guidelines.⁴
III. Discussion
A. The Defendant’s Conduct Warrants a Term of Imprisonment Within the Guidelines Range of 360 to 660 Months’ Imprisonment
1. The Nature and Seriousness of the Offense
The defendant stands convicted of sexually exploiting multiple underage girls. Her crimes were monstrous, and the Court should impose a sentence that reflects her role in serious federal
⁴ The defendant also argues that application of the Guideline to her would yield absurd results, because she would have a lower sentencing range if she had been convicted of a prior sex offense, and (she claims) the same sentencing range that Epstein would face. (Def. Mem. 14-16). But Section 4B1.5(a) is structured differently than Section 4B1.5(b), setting floors for the offense level and criminal history category rather than imposing a five-level increase. See U.S.S.G. Amend. 615 (explaining that § 4B1.5(a)’s penalties rely on the prior conviction but § 4B1.5(b) does not). Because the Guidelines have different structures, where—as here—a defendant is near the top of the Guidelines by virtue of her criminal conduct on her one and only conviction, the five-level enhancement is more significant than § 4B1.5’s penalty floors. That result is not absurd, but a reflection of the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct.
34
DOJ-OGR-00010571
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document