DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
717 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
717 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing that refutes two arguments made by the defendant. First, it argues that the standard for the victim's (Carolyn's) behavior is 'undue influence,' not complete lack of voluntary action. Second, it dismisses the defendant's claim of 'double-counting' in sentencing enhancements by citing legal precedents (Watkins, Kohlmeier, Arbaugh) which establish that different guideline provisions can address different harms from the same conduct.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn |
Mentioned as a person whose behavior is being discussed in relation to Epstein and Maxwell's influence. It is noted s...
|
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as someone who, along with Maxwell, asked things of Carolyn.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as someone who, along with Epstein, asked things of Carolyn.
|
|
| Montijo-Maysonet |
Named in the case citation United States v. Montijo-Maysonet.
|
|
| Watkins |
Named in the case citation Watkins, 667 F.3d at 261.
|
|
| Kohlmeier |
Named in the case citation United States v. Kohlmeier.
|
|
| Arbaugh |
Named in the case citation United States v. Arbaugh.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in a case citation (1st Cir. 2020), referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in a case citation (2d Cir. 2021), referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
| 4th Cir. | government agency |
Referenced in a case citation (4th Cir. 2020), referring to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier DOJ-OGR-00010567.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a location where Carolyn did not travel with Epstein and Maxwell.
|
Relationships (2)
They are mentioned together as a unit (“Epstein and Maxwell”) who allegedly asked things of Carolyn, suggesting a partnership or joint action.
The document discusses the 'undue influence' Epstein and Maxwell had over Carolyn, whose behavior is being analyzed in relation to their requests.
Key Quotes (6)
"whatever [Epstein and Maxwell] asked of her"Source
— defendant (paraphrased)
(A quote used to describe the defendant's argument about Carolyn's behavior.)
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
Quote #1
"‘undue influence,’ not coercion."Source
— United States v. Montijo-Maysonet
(Quoted to define the legal standard being applied.)
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
Quote #2
"[i]mpermissible double counting occurs when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase the defendant’s sentence to reflect the kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by another part of the Guidelines."Source
— Watkins case
(A quote from the Watkins case, noted by the defendant, defining impermissible double counting.)
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
Quote #3
"when the challenged part of the Guidelines aim[s] at different harms emanating from the same conduct, there is no impermissible double counting,"Source
— Watkins case
(A quote from the Watkins case used to argue against the defendant's double-counting claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
Quote #4
"[e]nhancements are not duplicative when they reflect different facets of the defendant’s conduct."Source
— Watkins case
(A quote from the Watkins case used to argue against the defendant's double-counting claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
Quote #5
"By its plain terms, § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) focuses on a different aggravating factor (undue influence) than § 2G1.3 (minor victims) . . . . As such, subsection (b)(2)(B) does not ‘consider’ the same factor as these other Guideline provisions."Source
— United States v. Arbaugh
(Quoted from a case to support the argument that the base offense level and the enhancement address different factors, thus avoiding double-counting.)
DOJ-OGR-00010567.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,100 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 32 of 55
behavior was voluntary, the defendant argues that Carolyn did not do “whatever [Epstein and Maxwell] asked of her”—noting that Carolyn did not travel with them to Little Saint James. (Def. Mem. 21). But that shows only that their undue influence was not all-consuming, not that they lacked influence whatsoever. The standard is “‘undue influence,’ not coercion.” United States v. Montijo-Maysonet, 874 F.3d 34, 52 (1st Cir. 2020).
The defendant also argues that application of this enhancement would constitute double-counting because the base offense level for Counts Three, Four, and Six covers her conduct enticing and coercing minors. (Def. Mem. 20). This argument lacks merit. As the defendant correctly notes, “[i]mpermissible double counting occurs when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase the defendant’s sentence to reflect the kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by another part of the Guidelines.” Watkins, 667 F.3d at 261. But “when the challenged part of the Guidelines aim[s] at different harms emanating from the same conduct, there is no impermissible double counting,” and “[e]nhancements are not duplicative when they reflect different facets of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. at 261-62 (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted).
The relevant inquiry therefore is whether the base offense level is aimed at the same harm as the enhancement. Here, it is not: the base offense level (which refers to § 2G1.3) captures the category of sex offenses against minors, and § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) applies to the use of undue influence. See United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App’x 444, 446-47 (2d Cir. 2021) (describing the focus of § 2B1.3(b)(2)(B)); United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F. 3d 167, 173 (4th Cir. 2020) (“By its plain terms, § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) focuses on a different aggravating factor (undue influence) than § 2G1.3 (minor victims) . . . . As such, subsection (b)(2)(B) does not ‘consider’ the same factor as these other Guideline provisions.”).
30
DOJ-OGR-00010567
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document