mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021590.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "160",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page160 of 217\n\nM6SQmax1\n45\n1 two if a participant unduly influenced a minor to engage in a\n2 commercial sex act. In defining the enhancement, the\n3 Commission instructs courts to closely consider the facts of\n4 the case to determine whether a participant's influence over\n5 the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's\n6 behavior. 2G1.1, comment note 7. And if the participant is at\n7 least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable\n8 presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to\n9 engage in a commercial sex act. I overrule the defendant's\n10 objection.\n11 The defendant first says the undue influence\n12 enhancement would punish her for the same harm already counted\n13 in her base offense level. Impermissible double counting\n14 occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the\n15 kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in\n16 the Guidelines but does not occur if the enhancement aims at\n17 differing harms emanating from the same conduct or reflects\n18 different facets of the defendant's conduct. United States v.\n19 Watkins, 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012). There isn't double\n20 counting here. The 2G1.1(a) base offense level reflects the\n21 aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex\n22 offense was minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects\n23 the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act.\n24 I'll cite a few cases that stand for that proposition,\n25 including United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App'x, 444 (2d\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021590",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page160 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n45\n1 two if a participant unduly influenced a minor to engage in a\n2 commercial sex act. In defining the enhancement, the\n3 Commission instructs courts to closely consider the facts of\n4 the case to determine whether a participant's influence over\n5 the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's\n6 behavior. 2G1.1, comment note 7. And if the participant is at\n7 least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable\n8 presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to\n9 engage in a commercial sex act. I overrule the defendant's\n10 objection.\n11 The defendant first says the undue influence\n12 enhancement would punish her for the same harm already counted\n13 in her base offense level. Impermissible double counting\n14 occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the\n15 kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in\n16 the Guidelines but does not occur if the enhancement aims at\n17 differing harms emanating from the same conduct or reflects\n18 different facets of the defendant's conduct. United States v.\n19 Watkins, 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012). There isn't double\n20 counting here. The 2G1.1(a) base offense level reflects the\n21 aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex\n22 offense was minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects\n23 the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act.\n24 I'll cite a few cases that stand for that proposition,\n25 including United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App'x, 444 (2d",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021590",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Commission",
      "United States",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "78",
      "3536039",
      "160",
      "217",
      "2G1.1",
      "667 F.3d 254",
      "858 F. App'x, 444",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021590"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly clear, but there may be some minor formatting issues due to the original document's layout."
}