mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00014793.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "46",
    "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 46 of 101\nM6SQmax1\n\n1 Cir. 2021) (summary order). Similar conclusion, United States\n2 v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That\n3 case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue\n4 influence enhancement \"serve unique purposes under the\n5 Guidelines.\"\n\n6 The defense argues that because the enhancement\n7 applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a\n8 commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in\n9 Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn\n10 to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that\n11 Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was\n12 brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,\n13 including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received\n14 money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the\n15 enhancement.\n\n16 The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced\n17 to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.\n18 The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far\n19 exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the\n20 resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note\n21 7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized\n22 massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.\n23 Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money\n24 for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of\n25 a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300    DOJ-OGR-00014793",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 46 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n\n1 Cir. 2021) (summary order). Similar conclusion, United States\n2 v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That\n3 case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue\n4 influence enhancement \"serve unique purposes under the\n5 Guidelines.\"\n\n6 The defense argues that because the enhancement\n7 applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a\n8 commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in\n9 Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn\n10 to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that\n11 Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was\n12 brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,\n13 including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received\n14 money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the\n15 enhancement.\n\n16 The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced\n17 to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.\n18 The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far\n19 exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the\n20 resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note\n21 7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized\n22 massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.\n23 Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money\n24 for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of\n25 a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300    DOJ-OGR-00014793",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Melissa",
      "Jane",
      "Annie",
      "Epstein",
      "Smith"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Ninth Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2013",
      "08/22/22",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "779",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014793",
      "719 F.3d 1120"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a sex trafficking case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}