mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010440.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "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 23 of 29\nthat she did so in connection with the offense conduct related to \"Jane,\" Annie Farmer, or Carolyn. The aggravating role enhancement therefore does not apply to any of the three offense groups.\nB. The Criminal Activity Was Not \"Otherwise Extensive\"\nEven if the Court finds that Ms. Maxwell supervised another \"participant,\" the record does not support a finding that the criminal activity related to \"Jane,\" Annie Farmer, or Carolyn was \"otherwise extensive,\" as the government contends.9 Under the Guidelines, the Court must treat each minor victim separately and consider whether the enhancement applies based solely on the criminal activity related to that minor victim. See USSG § 2G1.3, cmt. n.6 (\"[S]ubsection (d)(1) directs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction includes travel or transportation to engage in a commercial sex act or prohibited sexual conduct in respect to more than one minor ... each such minor shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction.\"). For example, the government cannot use conduct from the 2001-2004 time period related to Carolyn to justify applying the aggravating role enhancement to the criminal activity in 1994-1997 related to \"Jane\" or in 1996 related to Annie Farmer.\nThe government nevertheless attempts to justify the enhancement as to each of the three minor victims by making a broad assertion about the nature and scope of the conspiracy as a whole, rather than making an individualized determination that the criminal activity was \"otherwise extensive\" as to each. (See PSR at 59). Because that is insufficient to establish that the criminal activity was \"otherwise extensive,\" Ms. Maxwell should, at most, be subject to a two-point enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(c).\n9 The government does not argue that the aggravating role enhancement applies because the criminal activity involved \"five or more participants,\" conceding that the trial record does not support the conclusion that five or more people criminally participated in the offense conduct.\n19\nDOJ-OGR-00010440",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 662 Filed 06/15/22 Page 23 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that she did so in connection with the offense conduct related to \"Jane,\" Annie Farmer, or Carolyn. The aggravating role enhancement therefore does not apply to any of the three offense groups.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Criminal Activity Was Not \"Otherwise Extensive\"\nEven if the Court finds that Ms. Maxwell supervised another \"participant,\" the record does not support a finding that the criminal activity related to \"Jane,\" Annie Farmer, or Carolyn was \"otherwise extensive,\" as the government contends.9 Under the Guidelines, the Court must treat each minor victim separately and consider whether the enhancement applies based solely on the criminal activity related to that minor victim. See USSG § 2G1.3, cmt. n.6 (\"[S]ubsection (d)(1) directs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction includes travel or transportation to engage in a commercial sex act or prohibited sexual conduct in respect to more than one minor ... each such minor shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction.\"). For example, the government cannot use conduct from the 2001-2004 time period related to Carolyn to justify applying the aggravating role enhancement to the criminal activity in 1994-1997 related to \"Jane\" or in 1996 related to Annie Farmer.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government nevertheless attempts to justify the enhancement as to each of the three minor victims by making a broad assertion about the nature and scope of the conspiracy as a whole, rather than making an individualized determination that the criminal activity was \"otherwise extensive\" as to each. (See PSR at 59). Because that is insufficient to establish that the criminal activity was \"otherwise extensive,\" Ms. Maxwell should, at most, be subject to a two-point enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(c).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9 The government does not argue that the aggravating role enhancement applies because the criminal activity involved \"five or more participants,\" conceding that the trial record does not support the conclusion that five or more people criminally participated in the offense conduct.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010440",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jane",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/15/22",
      "2001-2004",
      "1994-1997",
      "1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 662",
      "USSG § 2G1.3",
      "USSG § 3B1.1(c)",
      "PSR at 59",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010440"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the application of sentencing guidelines. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}