{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "73",
    "document_number": "20-2",
    "date": "04/01/2021",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page73 of 200\n\n1 MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor.\n2 The difference is a small ministerial correction, a\n3 reference to a civil docket number contained in the perjury\n4 counts, which are Counts Five and Six of the superseding\n5 indictment. Aside from the alteration of those docket numbers,\n6 the reference to them, there are no other changes to the\n7 indictment.\n8 THE COURT: All right. Again, I will conduct the\n9 arraignment on the S1 indictment.\n10 Ms. Maxwell, have you seen a copy of the S1 indictment\n11 in this matter?\n12 THE DEFENDANT: I saw the original indictment, your\n13 Honor. The original --\n14 THE COURT: Okay.\n15 All right. Mr. Cohen, did you have an opportunity to\n16 discuss with Ms. Maxwell the ministerial change that was\n17 completed by way of the superseding indictment?\n18 MR. COHEN: Yes, yes, Judge. We have, your Honor.\n19 THE COURT: Any objection to proceeding on the\n20 arraignment of the S1 indictment, Mr. Cohen?\n21 MR. COHEN: No, your Honor.\n22 THE COURT: All right.\n23 Ms. Maxwell, have you had an opportunity to discuss\n24 the indictment in this case with your attorney?\n25 THE DEFENDANT: I have, your Honor.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001014",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page73 of 200",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor.\n2 The difference is a small ministerial correction, a\n3 reference to a civil docket number contained in the perjury\n4 counts, which are Counts Five and Six of the superseding\n5 indictment. Aside from the alteration of those docket numbers,\n6 the reference to them, there are no other changes to the\n7 indictment.\n8 THE COURT: All right. Again, I will conduct the\n9 arraignment on the S1 indictment.\n10 Ms. Maxwell, have you seen a copy of the S1 indictment\n11 in this matter?\n12 THE DEFENDANT: I saw the original indictment, your\n13 Honor. The original --\n14 THE COURT: Okay.\n15 All right. Mr. Cohen, did you have an opportunity to\n16 discuss with Ms. Maxwell the ministerial change that was\n17 completed by way of the superseding indictment?\n18 MR. COHEN: Yes, yes, Judge. We have, your Honor.\n19 THE COURT: Any objection to proceeding on the\n20 arraignment of the S1 indictment, Mr. Cohen?\n21 MR. COHEN: No, your Honor.\n22 THE COURT: All right.\n23 Ms. Maxwell, have you had an opportunity to discuss\n24 the indictment in this case with your attorney?\n25 THE DEFENDANT: I have, your Honor.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001014",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Mode",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Mr. Cohen"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 20-2",
      "3068530",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001014"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}