mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00014792.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "45",
    "document_number": "779",
    "date": "08/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 45 of 101 45 M6SQmax1 two if a participant unduly influenced a minor to engage in a commercial sex act. In defining the enhancement, the Commission instructs courts to closely consider the facts of the case to determine whether a participant's influence over the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's behavior. 2G1.1, comment note 7. And if the participant is at least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to engage in a commercial sex act. I overrule the defendant's objection. The defendant first says the undue influence enhancement would punish her for the same harm already counted in her base offense level. Impermissible double counting occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in the Guidelines but does not occur if the enhancement aims at differing harms emanating from the same conduct or reflects different facets of the defendant's conduct. United States v. Watkins, 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012). There isn't double counting here. The 2G1.1(a) base offense level reflects the aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex offense was a minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act. I'll cite a few cases that stand for that proposition, including United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App'x, 444 (2d SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014792",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 45 of 101 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1 two if a participant unduly influenced a minor to engage in a commercial sex act. In defining the enhancement, the Commission instructs courts to closely consider the facts of the case to determine whether a participant's influence over the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's behavior. 2G1.1, comment note 7. And if the participant is at least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to engage in a commercial sex act. I overrule the defendant's objection. The defendant first says the undue influence enhancement would punish her for the same harm already counted in her base offense level. Impermissible double counting occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in the Guidelines but does not occur if the enhancement aims at differing harms emanating from the same conduct or reflects different facets of the defendant's conduct. United States v. Watkins, 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012). There isn't double counting here. The 2G1.1(a) base offense level reflects the aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex offense was a minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act. I'll cite a few cases that stand for that proposition, 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 DOJ-OGR-00014792",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Commission",
      "Guidelines",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/22/22",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "779",
      "2G1.1",
      "667 F.3d 254",
      "858 F. App'x, 444",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014792"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The content discusses legal concepts and cites specific cases."
}