DOJ-OGR-00014761.jpg

that for now.
Paragraph 72, defendant objects to the assertion that
Epstein briefly penetrated Carolyn's vagina with his penis
because her trial testimony the defense claims is contradicted
by a 2009 deposition testimony. I overrule this objection.
Again, I credit Carolyn's testimony. Carolyn plainly testified
to this at trial.
Paragraph 74, the defendant again objects to the
assertion as to the age and timing. Again, we'll pick up on
that issue when we discuss the appropriate guideline manual.
Paragraphs 75 and 76 the defendant objects to the
inclusion of these paragraphs in the presentence report because
the perjury counts have not been presented to a jury, and so
she contends have no bearing on the sentence in this case. I
do overrule this objection. A sentencing court's discretion is
largely unlimited as to the kind of information it may
consider. It's free to consider evidence of uncharged crimes,
dropped counts of an indictment, criminal activity resulting in
acquittal in determining sentence. United States v. Bennett,
839 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016). I may consider the information as
long as the information is reliable and accurate. For the
following reasons, I do conclude the information underlying the
severed perjury charges is reliable. The defendant testified
under oath in 2016 that she was not aware of Epstein's scheme
to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and other than
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C..
(212) 805-0300