DOJ-OGR-00010570.jpg

769 KB

Extraction Summary

2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal brief (sentencing memorandum)
File Size: 769 KB
Summary

This page is from a legal filing (Document 670) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on June 22, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, arguing that penalties should be increased for patterns of sexual abuse involving minors. The prosecution argues that specific 'background commentary' cited by the defense is not binding and should not override the text of the relevant guidelines intended to ensure severe punishment for such crimes.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant
Implied as 'the defendant' in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE; the text argues regarding sentencing guidelines applicable to h...
Orrin Hatch Senator
Quoted from a 1998 Senate statement regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
United States Sentencing Commission
Authority directed to promulgate amendments to Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
U.S. Senate
105th Congress, 2nd Session mentioned in citation.
2d Cir.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in United States v. Sash.
DOJ-OGR
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (implied by Bates stamp).

Timeline (1 events)

1998-09-17
Proceedings and Debates Before the Senate regarding the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998
U.S. Senate
Sen. Orrin Hatch

Relationships (1)

Government (Prosecution) Legal Adversaries Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell)
Text rebuts the defendant's reliance on background commentary: 'The commentary on which the defendant relies is not...'

Key Quotes (5)

"Pursuant to its authority . . . the United States Sentencing Commission shall . . . promulgate amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to increase penalties applicable to [certain offenses] in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010570.jpg
Quote #1
"ensure that the sentences... are appropriately severe and reasonably consistent with other relevant directives"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010570.jpg
Quote #2
"another is just punishment for the seriousness of criminal conduct involving the abuse of multiple minors or a minor on multiple occasions."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010570.jpg
Quote #3
"The commentary on which the defendant relies is not 'interpretive or explanatory,' but 'background' commentary."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010570.jpg
Quote #4
"Background commentary, which 'merely provides . . . reasons underlying promulgation of the guideline,' is not binding."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00010570.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,263 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 35 of 55
minors.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 background cmt.; see Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-314 § 505 (“Pursuant to its authority . . . the United States Sentencing Commission shall . . . promulgate amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to increase penalties applicable to [certain offenses] in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.”); see id. § 502 (directing the Sentencing Commission to “ensure that the sentences, guidelines, and policy statements for offenders convicted of [Chapter 117 offenses] are appropriately severe and reasonably consistent with other relevant directives with other Federal Sentencing Guidelines”). That is, while one concern motivating the Guideline is protection of the public from future offenses, another is just punishment for the seriousness of criminal conduct involving the abuse of multiple minors or a minor on multiple occasions. See also, e.g., U.S.S.G. Amend. 615 (explaining that this Guideline was promulgated to “increase penalties in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor” (emphasis added)); Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Proceedings and Debates Before the Senate, 105th Cong., 2nd Session (Sept. 17, 1998) (statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch), available at 144 Cong. Rec. S10518-02, S10521, 1998 WL 636904 (“[T]he bill will also recommend that the Sentencing Commission reevaluate the guidelines applicable to these offenses, and increase them where appropriate to address the egregiousness of these crimes.”). In any event, Guidelines commentary is not binding over the text of the relevant Guideline. The commentary on which the defendant relies is not “interpretive or explanatory,” but “background” commentary. United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515, 523 (2d Cir. 2005); see Def. Mem. 14 (“The government ignores the background commentary to § 4B1.5 . . . .” (emphasis added)). Background commentary, which “merely provides . . . reasons underlying promulgation of the guideline,” is not binding. Id. (internal
33
DOJ-OGR-00010570

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document