{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "662",
    "date": "06/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 662 Filed 06/15/22 Page 15 of 29\n\nA. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Present a Continuing Danger to the Public.\n\nIt is clear from the Guidelines commentary and the Congressional intent underlying the creation of § 4B1.5 that the adjustment does not apply to Ms. Maxwell. The Sentencing Commission created § 4B1.5 after the passage of the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 (the “Act”). See Pub. Law 105-314 (Oct. 30, 1998). As part of the Act, Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to several offenses involving child sexual abuse and exploitation, including the enticement and transportation offenses charged in the S2 Indictment, to ensure they were “appropriately severe.” Id., Section 502. Congress also specifically directed the Sentencing Commission to review the guidelines applicable to these and other sexual abuse offenses and promulgate amendments “to increase penalties applicable to the[se] offenses … in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” Id., Section 505. In response, the Sentencing Commission created § 4B1.5, which was added to the Sentencing Guidelines on November 1, 2001. See USSG, App’x C, amend. 615.\n\nThe legislative history of the Act makes clear that the purpose of the law, and § 4B1.5 specifically, was to protect children from habitual sexual predators and to inflict severe punishments on repeat (and often violent) offenders who present a significant risk of recidivism. Congress was particularly concerned about the danger these defendants pose to the community because they are typically far more likely to re-offend than other criminal defendants – a fact which numerous members of Congress cited as a primary justification for the passage of the Act.\n\n“Constituents deserve to be protected from society’s worst offender-- the repeat sexual predator…. [T]he recidivism rates of sex offenders are astonishingly high - released rapists are 10 times more likely to repeat their crime than other criminals. The Congress has a responsibility to address the issue by passing a bill that would put an end to this cycle of violence repeated by a single perpetrator.” Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998, Hearing Before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, 105th\n\n11 DOJ-OGR-00010432",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 662 Filed 06/15/22 Page 15 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Ms. Maxwell Does Not Present a Continuing Danger to the Public.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is clear from the Guidelines commentary and the Congressional intent underlying the creation of § 4B1.5 that the adjustment does not apply to Ms. Maxwell. The Sentencing Commission created § 4B1.5 after the passage of the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 (the “Act”). See Pub. Law 105-314 (Oct. 30, 1998). As part of the Act, Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to review and amend the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to several offenses involving child sexual abuse and exploitation, including the enticement and transportation offenses charged in the S2 Indictment, to ensure they were “appropriately severe.” Id., Section 502. Congress also specifically directed the Sentencing Commission to review the guidelines applicable to these and other sexual abuse offenses and promulgate amendments “to increase penalties applicable to the[se] offenses … in any case in which the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” Id., Section 505. In response, the Sentencing Commission created § 4B1.5, which was added to the Sentencing Guidelines on November 1, 2001. See USSG, App’x C, amend. 615.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The legislative history of the Act makes clear that the purpose of the law, and § 4B1.5 specifically, was to protect children from habitual sexual predators and to inflict severe punishments on repeat (and often violent) offenders who present a significant risk of recidivism. Congress was particularly concerned about the danger these defendants pose to the community because they are typically far more likely to re-offend than other criminal defendants – a fact which numerous members of Congress cited as a primary justification for the passage of the Act.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": null,
      "position": null
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "“Constituents deserve to be protected from society’s worst offender-- the repeat sexual predator…. [T]he recidivism rates of sex offenders are astonishingly high - released rapists are 10 times more likely to repeat their crime than other criminals. The Congress has a responsibility to address the issue by passing a bill that would put an end to this cycle of violence repeated by a single perpetrator.” Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998, Hearing Before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, 105th",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11 DOJ-OGR-00010432",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Sentencing Commission",
      "Congress",
      "House Judiciary Committee",
      "Subcommittee on Crime"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "Oct. 30, 1998",
      "November 1, 2001",
      "06/15/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "662",
      "§ 4B1.5",
      "Pub. Law 105-314",
      "Id., Section 502",
      "Id., Section 505",
      "USSG, App’x C, amend. 615",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010432"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed, and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}