DOJ-OGR-00010581.jpg
827 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
827 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's request for a lenient sentence. The prosecution refutes the defendant's claims of harsh pretrial confinement conditions, stating the Court was well-informed and the conditions did not warrant a downward variance. The filing also dismisses the defendant's comparison to the Harvey Weinstein case, asserting that her federal child exploitation crimes are different and warrant a significant sentence, citing a similar case (United States v. Maria Soly Almonte) as precedent.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Harvey Weinstein |
Mentioned in a footnote as a point of comparison by the defendant, who argued she should not be 'sentenced as if she ...
|
|
| Maria Soly Almonte | Defendant |
Cited in a footnote as an example in the case 'United States v. Maria Soly Almonte', where she was sentenced to twent...
|
| KMW |
Initials associated with the 'United States v. Maria Soly Almonte' case, likely referring to the judge or another party.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bureau of Prisons | government agency |
Mentioned as the source of information on the defendant's confinement conditions, via communications between its lega...
|
| Government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecution in the legal case, which communicated with the Bureau of Prisons about the defendant.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The defendant was held in pretrial confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
Metropolitan Detention Center
Unnamed Defendant
Maria Soly Almonte was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment for a non-violent child trafficking scheme.
this District
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The facility where the defendant was held in pretrial confinement, referred to as 'MDC'.
|
Relationships (2)
Unnamed Defendant
→
adversarial
→
The Government
The document outlines the Government's arguments against the defendant's request for a lenient sentence.
Unnamed Defendant
→
judicial
→
The Court
The Court is overseeing the defendant's case, including her conditions of confinement and sentencing.
Key Quotes (2)
"should promote general deterrence against the exploitation and degradation of humans made possible by this offense, as well as untouchable individuals who feel their privilege and affluence entitle them to victimize others without fear of consequence."Source
— Office
(Quoted from a report (PSR at 67) regarding the purpose of a significant sentence.)
DOJ-OGR-00010581.jpg
Quote #1
"sentenced as if she were Harvey Weinstein"Source
— The defendant
(A quote from the defendant's argument, cited in a footnote, arguing against a harsh sentence by comparing her case to Harvey Weinstein's.)
DOJ-OGR-00010581.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,478 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 46 of 55
Office recognized in its report, a significant sentence “should promote general deterrence against the exploitation and degradation of humans made possible by this offense, as well as untouchable individuals who feel their privilege and affluence entitle them to victimize others without fear of consequence.” (PSR at 67).⁸
B. The Defendant’s Arguments for a Lenient Sentence Are Unpersuasive
The defendant spends the majority of her sentencing submission complaining that her conditions of pretrial confinement warrant a downward variance. Not only are the defendant’s claims inaccurate, but the defense overlooks the extraordinary steps that the Court has taken throughout the pendency of this case to oversee the conditions of this defendant’s confinement. Indeed, the Court received regular updates regarding the defendant’s conditions of confinement throughout this case, which were based on regular communications between the Government and Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) legal counsel. As a result, the Court already has exceptional insight into the defendant’s conditions of pretrial confinement and is well aware of the many privileges the defendant has received while in custody. Although the defendant has clearly disliked her experience at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”), the conditions she in fact experienced do not rise to a level of extremity that warrant a downward variance, much less the extent of a variance the defendant seeks.
⁸ The defendant argues that she should not be “sentenced as if she were Harvey Weinstein” who was convicted of forcible rape following a state jury trial. (Dkt. No. 663 at 20). These are different cases, under different sentencing regimes, with different facts. It is pointless to compare a state rape case involving adults to a federal case involving child exploitation. The defendant should be sentenced under the applicable federal Sentencing Guidelines for her extensive crimes against children. Defendants engaged in sexual abuse of minors are regularly sentenced to significant sentences of imprisonment in this District. See, e.g., United States v. Maria Soly Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW) (defendant sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for a non-violent child trafficking scheme, notwithstanding mitigating factors, including defendant’s poverty and personal experience with sexual abuse). The defendant is not an exception.
44
DOJ-OGR-00010581
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document