DOJ-OGR-00021590.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document ONAL 3536039, Page160 of 217 45 M6SOmaxl 1 two if a participant unduly influenced a minor to engage ina 2 commercial sex act. In defining the enhancement, the 3 Commission instructs courts to closely consider the facts of 4 the case to determine whether a participant's influence over 5 the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's 6 behavior. 2Gl.1, comment note 7. And if the participant is at 7 least ten years older than the minor, there is a rebuttable 8 presumption that the participant unduly influenced the minor to 9 engage in a commercial sex act. I overrule the defendant's 10 objection. 11 The defendant first says the undue influence 12 enhancement would punish her for the same harm already counted L3 in her base offense level. Impermissible double counting 14 occurs when a guideline enhancement is applied to reflect the 15 kind of harm that's already fully accounted for elsewhere in 16 the Guidelines but does not occur if the enhancement aims at 17 differing harms emanating from the same conduct or reflects 18 different facets of the defendant's conduct. United States v. 19 Watkins, 667 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2012). There isn't double 20 counting here. The 2Gl1.1(a) base offense level reflects the a1 aggregating factor that the victim of the defendant's sex 22 offense was a minor. The enhancement, by contrast, reflects 23 the use of undue influence to engage in a commercial sex act. 24 I'll cite a few cases that stand for that proposition, 25 including United States v. Kohlmeier, 858 F. App'x, 444 (2d SOUTHERN STR CT REPORTERS, P.C.*ee 12) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021590