DOJ-OGR-00010433.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 662 Filed 06/15/22 Page 16 of 29 Cong. (Apr. 30, 1998) (testimony of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)), available at 1998 WL 210930. e “These strong sentencing provisions are important because the recidivism rates for sex offenders and pedophiles are 10 times higher than that of other criminals. Frankly, chances are that these predators will strike again.” Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998, Proceedings and Debates Before the House of Representatives, 105" Cong., 274 Session (Jun. 11, 1998) (comments of Rep. Deborah Pryce of (R-OH)), available at 144 Cong. Rec. H4491-03, 1998 WL 306835. e “Sentences for child abuse and exploitation offenses will be made tougher. In addition to increasing the maximum penalties available for many crimes against children and mandating tough sentences for repeat offenders, the bill will also recommend that the Sentencing Commission reevaluate the guidelines applicable to these offenses and increase them where appropriate to address the egregiousness of these crimes.” Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Proceedings and Debates Before the Senate, 105" Cong., ond Session (Sept. 17, 1998) (statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch of (R-UT)), available at 144 Cong. Rec. $10518-02, 1998 WL 636904. The Congressional intent underlying the Act was clear: the criminal statutes and the Sentencing Guidelines needed to be amended to impose harsher sentences on these sorts of dangerous, repeat sexual offenders to make sure that they do not “strike again.” The Sentencing Commission adopted this rationale in promulgating § 4B1.5. The commentary to the guideline explains that the adjustment should only apply to defendants who present a continuing danger to the community because there is a significant risk that they will re- offend if they are released from prison. See USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background (“This guideline is intended to provide lengthy incarceration for offenders who commit sex offenses against minors and who present a continuing danger to the public.” (emphasis added); see also United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265, 285 (2d Cir. 2012) (“We further note that this guideline [$4B1.5] is intended to identify ‘repeat sex offenders,’ who pose ‘a continuing danger to the public.’” (citing USSG § 4B1.5 cmt. background)). The title of the enhancement itself reflects that it should only be applied to “Repeat and Dangerous” sex offenders. USSG § 4B1.5. 12 DOJ-OGR-00010433