mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010569.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34 of 55",
    "document_number": "670",
    "date": "06/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 34 of 55\n\nAll three of these requirements are satisfied here. The offense of conviction is a \"covered sex crime.\" See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 app. n.2 (stating that offenses in Chapter 117 of Title 18 are covered sex crimes); 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (located in Chapter 117). The defendant is neither a career offender nor a repeat offender. And the defendant \"engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.\" As discussed at length above, the defendant transported Jane to New York, a Chapter 117 offense, she transported Virginia, and she touched Jane and Carolyn's breasts—which would be Chapter 109A offenses had they occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2244, 2246 (2003) (defining \"sexual contact\" to include the touching of the breast with the intent to \"gratify the sexual desire of any person,\" and criminalizing knowingly engaging in sexual contact with a minor under the age of 16). This is well more than required by the Guidelines. See United States v. Telles, 18 F.4th 290, 303 (9th Cir. 2021) (applying the enhancement where \"Telles sexually abused T.B. on two separate occasions—the first night he arrived in the United Kingdom and the second night of his trip\").\n\nThe defendant has no serious argument that the text of the Guidelines is inapplicable on these facts. Instead, she argues that the Guideline is only intended to apply to continuing sexual offenders, and so should not be applied to her. (Def. Mem. 11-14). The background commentary incorporates her principle, she adds, and such commentary is \"authoritative.\" (Id. at 14). This argument fails at each step.\n\nFirst, applying § 4B1.5(b) to the defendant is entirely consistent with the Guidelines commentary. That commentary explains that the enhancement is meant to prevent repeat sexual offenders from committing further crimes, as the defendant notes. But it also explains that the Guideline was enacted in response to a congressional directive to \"ensure lengthy incarceration for offenders who engage in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 34 of 55",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "All three of these requirements are satisfied here. The offense of conviction is a \"covered sex crime.\" See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 app. n.2 (stating that offenses in Chapter 117 of Title 18 are covered sex crimes); 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (located in Chapter 117). The defendant is neither a career offender nor a repeat offender. And the defendant \"engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.\" As discussed at length above, the defendant transported Jane to New York, a Chapter 117 offense, she transported Virginia, and she touched Jane and Carolyn's breasts—which would be Chapter 109A offenses had they occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2244, 2246 (2003) (defining \"sexual contact\" to include the touching of the breast with the intent to \"gratify the sexual desire of any person,\" and criminalizing knowingly engaging in sexual contact with a minor under the age of 16). This is well more than required by the Guidelines. See United States v. Telles, 18 F.4th 290, 303 (9th Cir. 2021) (applying the enhancement where \"Telles sexually abused T.B. on two separate occasions—the first night he arrived in the United Kingdom and the second night of his trip\").",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant has no serious argument that the text of the Guidelines is inapplicable on these facts. Instead, she argues that the Guideline is only intended to apply to continuing sexual offenders, and so should not be applied to her. (Def. Mem. 11-14). The background commentary incorporates her principle, she adds, and such commentary is \"authoritative.\" (Id. at 14). This argument fails at each step.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, applying § 4B1.5(b) to the defendant is entirely consistent with the Guidelines commentary. That commentary explains that the enhancement is meant to prevent repeat sexual offenders from committing further crimes, as the defendant notes. But it also explains that the Guideline was enacted in response to a congressional directive to \"ensure lengthy incarceration for offenders who engage in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010569",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Virginia",
      "Carolyn",
      "Telles",
      "T.B."
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "United Kingdom",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/22/22",
      "2003",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 670",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2423",
      "18 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2244, 2246",
      "U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5",
      "18 F.4th 290"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the application of sentencing guidelines to the defendant. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}