DOJ-OGR-00021591.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document ON AIS 3536039, Page161 of 217 46 M6SOmaxl 1 Cir. 2021) (summary order). Similar conclusion, United States 2 v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That 3 case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue 4 influence enhancement "serve unique purposes under th 5 Guidelines." 6 The defense argues that because th nhancement 7 applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a 8 commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in 9 Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn 10 to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that 11 Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was 12 brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims, L3 including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received 14 money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the 15 enhancement. 16 The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced 17 to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless. 18 The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far 19 xceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the 20 resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note 21 7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized 22 massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction. 23 ater, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money 24 for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of 25 a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.eee (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021591