DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
648 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal filing
File Size:
648 KB
Summary
Page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is issuing a ruling regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically overruling the defendant's objection to an 'undue influence' enhancement. The judge argues that applying the enhancement does not constitute 'double counting' because it addresses the specific harm of using influence to coerce a commercial sex act, distinct from the base offense of the victim being a minor.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the sentencing enhancement ruling; referred to as 'her'. Based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, this is G...
|
| The Speaker (Judge) | Judge |
The individual speaking in the transcript, ruling on objections ('I overrule the defendant's objection'). Based on ca...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in footer.
|
|
| Sentencing Commission |
Referenced regarding instructions on defining enhancements ('The Commission instructs courts...').
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) |
Referenced in legal citation (United States v. Watkins).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Implied by footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-22
Court Ruling on Sentencing Enhancements
Southern District of New York Court
Judge
Defendant
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by 'Southern District Reporters' and the case jurisdiction.
|
Relationships (1)
Defendant
→
Perpetrator/Victim
→
Minor (Victim)
Text discusses defendant's 'undue influence' over a minor to engage in 'commercial sex act'.
Key Quotes (4)
"I overrule the defendant's objection."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
Quote #1
"And if the participant is at least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to engage in a commercial sex act."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
Quote #2
"Impermissible double counting occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in the Guidelines..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
Quote #3
"The 2G1.1(a) base offense level reflects the aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex offense was a minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,648 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 45 of 101 45
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 two if a participant unduly influenced a minor to engage in a
2 commercial sex act. In defining the enhancement, the
3 Commission instructs courts to closely consider the facts of
4 the case to determine whether a participant's influence over
5 the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's
6 behavior. 2G1.1, comment note 7. And if the participant is at
7 least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable
8 presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to
9 engage in a commercial sex act. I overrule the defendant's
10 objection.
11 The defendant first says the undue influence
12 enhancement would punish her for the same harm already counted
13 in her base offense level. Impermissible double counting
14 occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the
15 kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in
16 the Guidelines but does not occur if the enhancement aims at
17 differing harms emanating from the same conduct or reflects
18 different facets of the defendant's conduct. United States v.
19 Watkins, 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012). There isn't double
20 counting here. The 2G1.1(a) base offense level reflects the
21 aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex
22 offense was a minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects
23 the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act.
24 I'll cite a few cases that stand for that proposition,
25 including United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App'x, 444 (2d
2 commercial sex act. In defining the enhancement, the
3 Commission instructs courts to closely consider the facts of
4 the case to determine whether a participant's influence over
5 the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's
6 behavior. 2G1.1, comment note 7. And if the participant is at
7 least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable
8 presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to
9 engage in a commercial sex act. I overrule the defendant's
10 objection.
11 The defendant first says the undue influence
12 enhancement would punish her for the same harm already counted
13 in her base offense level. Impermissible double counting
14 occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the
15 kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in
16 the Guidelines but does not occur if the enhancement aims at
17 differing harms emanating from the same conduct or reflects
18 different facets of the defendant's conduct. United States v.
19 Watkins, 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012). There isn't double
20 counting here. The 2G1.1(a) base offense level reflects the
21 aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex
22 offense was a minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects
23 the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act.
24 I'll cite a few cases that stand for that proposition,
25 including United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App'x, 444 (2d
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
.
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014792
.
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014792
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document