mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011566.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47",
    "document_number": "737",
    "date": "07/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 47 of 101 47\n\nM6SQmax1\n\n1 cite some cases for that proposition. Watkins 667 F.3d at 265;\n2 United States v. Streb, 36 F.4th 782. That's an Eighth\n3 Circuit case from 2022. Courts have repeatedly concluded that\n4 a minor can be the victim of undue influence even if the minor\n5 initiates a sexual meeting. See, for example, United States v.\n6 Lay, 583 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2009). I therefore overrule the\n7 defendant's objection.\n8\n9 I next turn to the government's only objection to the\n10 PSR Guideline calculation. I do find that Virginia Roberts and\n11 Melissa were minor victims of sex offenses -- they were\n12 trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein during the\n13 charged period. The Guidelines require that each minor victim\n14 be considered a separate count of conviction. 2G1.1.(d)1.\n15 Probation department excluded Virginia and Melissa from this\n16 provision only because they were not named in the indictment.\n17 This is an incorrect basis for excluding them from the\n18 calculation. Relying on commentary by the Commission, the\n19 Second Circuit has instructed \"that conduct against victims\n20 other than those charged in the indictment may constitute\n21 relevant conduct, and, if such conduct qualifies, should be\n22 treated for sentencing purposes as though it occurred in a\n23 separate count of conviction.\" I United States V. Wernick,\n24 691, F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing 2G1.1 comment note 4). I\n25 therefore consider Virginia and Melissa as two additional\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011566",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 47 of 101 47",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n\n1 cite some cases for that proposition. Watkins 667 F.3d at 265;\n2 United States v. Streb, 36 F.4th 782. That's an Eighth\n3 Circuit case from 2022. Courts have repeatedly concluded that\n4 a minor can be the victim of undue influence even if the minor\n5 initiates a sexual meeting. See, for example, United States v.\n6 Lay, 583 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2009). I therefore overrule the\n7 defendant's objection.\n8\n9 I next turn to the government's only objection to the\n10 PSR Guideline calculation. I do find that Virginia Roberts and\n11 Melissa were minor victims of sex offenses -- they were\n12 trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein during the\n13 charged period. The Guidelines require that each minor victim\n14 be considered a separate count of conviction. 2G1.1.(d)1.\n15 Probation department excluded Virginia and Melissa from this\n16 provision only because they were not named in the indictment.\n17 This is an incorrect basis for excluding them from the\n18 calculation. Relying on commentary by the Commission, the\n19 Second Circuit has instructed \"that conduct against victims\n20 other than those charged in the indictment may constitute\n21 relevant conduct, and, if such conduct qualifies, should be\n22 treated for sentencing purposes as though it occurred in a\n23 separate count of conviction.\" I United States V. Wernick,\n24 691, F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing 2G1.1 comment note 4). I\n25 therefore consider Virginia and Melissa as two additional",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011566",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Melissa",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22",
      "2022"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011566"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal cases and sentencing guidelines."
}