United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEON JORDAN, District Judge.
The defendant pled guilty to conspiring to transport minors in interstate commerce for prostitution. She will be sentenced on March 12, 2015.
The United States Probation Office has prepared and disclosed a Revised Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") [doc. 121]. In material part, the PSR recommends imposition of eight sex-offender supervision conditions taken from this court's Local Rules. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.10(b). The defendant objects to four of those special conditions. She also objects to the application of United States Sentencing Guideline 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) which increases her offense level by two for unduly influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.
The defendant's objections are unaccompanied by citation to caselaw or any other authority. As such, the defendant has arguably forfeited her objections in their entirety. Nonetheless, the court will address the defendant's objections in turn. For the reasons that follow, those objections will be sustained in small part but otherwise overruled.
This case involves two minors who were taken to a motel to engage in prostitution with construction workers staying at that motel. The minors were born in April 1996 and October 1998. [Doc. 103, p. 80, 101]. The defendant was born in October 1985. The commentary to Guideline 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) provides in material part,
In determining whether subsection (b)(2)(B) applies, the court should closely consider the facts of the case to determine whether a participant's influence over the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's behavior. The voluntariness of the minor's behavior may be compromised without prohibited sexual conduct occurring.
In a case in which a participant is at least 10 years older than the minor, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that subsection (b)(2)(B) applies. In such a case, some degree of undue influence can be presumed because of the substantial difference in age between the participant and the minor.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G1.3 cmt. 3(B) (2013).
The defendant objects that one of the minors was already "well known... as a prostitute." [Doc. 123, p.1]. The defendant further contends that both minors "eagerly and readily agreed to join the activities." [Doc. 123, p.2]. Lastly, the defendant cites her documented borderline intellectual functioning. In light of these assertions, she argues "that the evidence does not support that the minor[s] [were] unduly influenced to engage in the sexual activities." [Doc. 123, p.1].
To resolve this objection, the court need look no further than the plea agreement signed by the defendant and her attorney in March 2014. In her plea agreement,
... [T]he defendant agrees and stipulates to the following facts....
Marziani had arranged for both females to accompany her and [codefendant Jerry] Johnson.... The defendant Marziani knew that both females were under the age of 18.
... During the drive [from Virginia to Tennessee], defendant Marziani instructed the two females about prostitution, rates to charge, and explained that Johnson was a pimp.
... Johnson, Marziani, and [codefendant Mellisa] Roper initially met with the construction workers and then... escorted the two underaged females... and introduced them to the male construction workers....
Marziani introduced the two underaged females to the male construction workers.... Marziani arranged for one of the two underaged females to perform oral sex on one of the construction workers, who paid $100 for the ...