NEW YORK – Federal prosecutors are urging a federal judge to quickly reject Sean “Diddy” Combs ’ request that he throw out a jury verdict or order a new trial after a jury convicted the music maven of two prostitution-related charges.

Prosecutors said in papers filed shortly before midnight Wednesday that Combs masterminded elaborate sexual events for two ex-girlfriends between 2008 and last year that involved hiring male sex workers who sometimes were required to cross multiple state lines to participate.

A jury in July exonerated the Bad Boy Records founder of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges that carried the potential penalty of a mandatory 15 years in prison up to life behind bars. But it convicted him of two lesser Mann Act charges that prohibit interstate commerce related to prostitution.

The Mann Act charges each carry a potential penalty of 10 years behind bars. Combs has been denied bail despite his lawyers’ arguments that their client should face little to no additional jail time for the convictions. Prosecutors said he must serve multiple years behind bars.

Combs has been in a federal jail in Brooklyn since his September arrest at a Manhattan hotel. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 3.

Prosecutors wrote that Combs’ attorneys were mistaken when they contended in a submission to the judge late last month that the Mann Act was unduly vague and violates his due process and First Amendment rights.

“Evidence of the defendant’s guilt on the Mann Act counts was overwhelming,” prosecutors wrote.

They noted that the multiday, drug-fueled sexual marathons that Combs demanded of his girlfriends involved hiring male sex workers and facilitating their travel across multiple states for what became known as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.”

Prosecutors said he then used video recordings he made of the sexual events to threaten and coerce the girlfriends to continue participating in the sometimes weekly or monthly sexual meetings.

“At trial, there was ample evidence to support the jury’s convictions,” prosecutors said.

They said Combs “masterminded every aspect” of the sexual meetups, paying escorts to travel across the country to participate and directing the sexual activity that took place between the men and his girlfriends “for his own sexual gratification” while sometimes joining in.

Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, an R&B artist who dated Combs from 2008 through 2018, testified during the trial that Combs sometimes demanded the sexual meetups with male escorts every week, often leaving her too exhausted to work on her music career. She said she participated in hundreds of “freak-offs.”

A woman who testified under the pseudonym “Jane” said she participated in “hotel nights” when she dated Combs from 2021 to last September and that the events sometimes lasted multiple days and required her to have sex with male sex workers, even when she was not well.

Both women testified that Combs had threatened to release videos he made of the encounters as a way of controlling their behavior.

“During these relationships, he asserted substantial control over Ventura and Jane’s lives. Specifically, he controlled and threatened Ventura’s career, controlled her appearance, and paid for most of her living expenses, taking away physical items when she did not do what he wanted,” prosecutors wrote.

“The defendant similarly paid Jane’s $10,000 rent and threatened her that he would stop paying her rent if she did not comply with his demands,” they said.

In their submission requesting acquittal or a new trial, Combs’ lawyers argued that none of the elements normally used for Mann Act convictions, including profiting from sex work or coercion, existed.

“It is undisputed that he had no commercial motive and that all involved were adults,” the lawyers said. “The men chose to travel and engage in the activity voluntarily. The verdict confirms the women were not vulnerable or exploited or trafficked or sexually assaulted.”

The lawyers said that Combs, “at most, paid to engage in voyeurism as part of a ‘swingers’ lifestyle” and argued that “does not constitute ‘prostitution’ under a properly limited definition of the statutory term.”