This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, is a transcript of a judge's ruling in Case 22-1426. The judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act does not constitute impermissible 'double counting' on top of the base offense. The judge cites legal precedent, including United States v. Watkins, to support the decision that the enhancement addresses a different facet of harm than the base offense level.
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.
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on July 22, 2022. A judge overrules a defendant's objection to a sentencing enhancement, arguing that applying an enhancement for 'undue influence' over a minor in a commercial sex act case is not impermissible 'double counting'. The judge explains that the enhancement addresses a different type of harm than the base offense level and cites precedent from 'United States v. Watkins' and 'United States v. Kohlmeier' to support the ruling.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity