DOJ-OGR-00021041.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 58_02/28/2023, 3475901, Page215 of 221 A-415 40 MesQmaxl 1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged ina 2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. 3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity 4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a 8 minor on at least two separate occasions. 6 The defendant doesn't contest any of thes numerated 7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this 8 enhancement only if Further find that the defendant poses a 9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this 10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing 11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress 12 who of emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences 13 for sex offenders. 14 [ overrule this objection because it lacks any basis 15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start 16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, 17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary. 18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary 19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a 20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the 21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered 22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines, 23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor 24 statements which are "among the least illuminating forms of 25 legislative history." NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929 SOUTHE iRN D STRICT REPORTERS, P.C.ees (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021041