DOJ-OGR-00010560.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document670 _ Filed 06/22/22 Page 25 o0f55 What the record makes clear is that the defendant remained a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein and continued to profit from their criminal relationship, long past 2004. There is nothing punitive about applying the 2004 Guidelines, which apply here as a matter of law. If anything, the fact that the defendant will be sentenced under the 2004 Guidelines, and not the higher range under the 2021 Guidelines, should be a factor that warrants a higher sentence. Indeed, the Supreme Court has expressly noted that sentencing courts may consider subsequent increases in offense levels for precisely that purpose. See Peugh, 569 U.S. at 549. B. The Four-Point Leadership Enhancement Applies The Government agrees with the Probation Office that the enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 applies because the defendant was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was “otherwise extensive.” The defendant’s conspiracy spanned at least five victims in three states, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, including at Epstein’s various properties, which the defendant ran, over the course of a decade. It involved the participation of numerous members of the defendant and Epstein’s staff, whether knowing or unknowing, and the use of minor victims to recruit other minor victims. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 app. n.3 (“In assessing whether an organization is ‘otherwise extensive,’ all persons involved during the course of the entire offense are to be considered,” and use of “the unknowing services of many outsiders could be considered extensive.”). For instance, Carolyn testified that she was recruited by Virginia and that Carolyn recruited other minor victims. Juan Alessi testified that he was driving when the defendant stopped to recruit Virginia. Two pilots testified about transporting minor victims on Epstein’s planes. That alone is five individuals involved in the criminal activity, without even counting the defendant herself, Epstein, and Sarah Kellen. See United States v. Kent, 821 F.3d 362, 369 (2d Cir. 2016) (explaining that a scheme is “otherwise extensive” if it involves “the functional equivalent” of 22 DOJ-OGR-00010560