DOJ-OGR-00014792.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:2 0-cr-00330-PAE M6éSOmaxl two if commercial sex act. In Commission a participant unduly init de Document 779 fining the enhan behavior. the case to det the minor compromised th rmine wh 2G] least ten years older th presumption that the participant unduly int engage in a commercial sex act. .l, objection. The defendant first enhancement would punish her in her Fens level. base o instructs courts to closely con ther a participan e voluntariness of comment note 7. an the minor, And if overrul Filed 08/22/22 Fluenced a minor cement, sider Page 45 of 101 45 to engage ina the the the participant is Fluenced the minor the d says the undue int facts of t's influence over the minor's at there is a rebuttable to fendant's fluence for the same harm already counted Impermissible double counting occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the kind of the Guidelines but does not occur if di Ffering harms emanating fF harm that's already fully accounted di fferent facets of Watkins, counting here. aggregating 667 F.3d 254 The 2G1.1(a) @) ry] (2d Cir. Factor that the victim of 2012). base of the defendant's conduct. fense level r for elsewhere in the enhancement aims at from the same conduct or reflects United States v. There isn't double flects the the inc de fendant's sex Ffense was a minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act. cite a few cases that stand for that proposition, luding United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App'x, 444 (2d SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C..» (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014792