{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "37",
    "document_number": "737",
    "date": "07/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 37 of 101 37 M6SQmax1\n\n1 United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2018). Here,\n2 the parties and the probation department agree that applying\n3 the current Guidelines would result in a significantly longer\n4 sentence than the application of the guidelines in place when\n5 the defendant committed her offense, whether that is the 2003\n6 or 2004 guidelines.\n\n7 The controlling date for ex post facto purposes is the\n8 last date of the offense of conviction. The 2004 Guidelines\n9 became effective on November 1, 2004. So I must determine if\n10 the last date of the offense was after November 1, 2004.\n11 Because it seeks an increased punishment, the\n12 government bears the burden of persuasion. The government\n13 charged a decade-long conspiracy of sexual abuse that the\n14 indictment alleged ended in 2004. It's proof at trial that the\n15 conspiracy continued in 2004 related to Carolyn. And the\n16 charged conspiracy had to end no later than very early 2005\n17 because that's when Carolyn turned 18 and can no longer be\n18 deemed a victim of the federal sex-trafficking offense charged\n19 which proscribes conduct with respect to individuals under the\n20 age of 18. So the government purports to carry its burden on\n21 this issue based on portions of Carolyn's testimony and some\n22 message pads regarding what occurred in 2004 and 2005.\n23 Let me state clearly, I found, as I said repeatedly in\n24 my factual conclusions on the PSR objections, I found Carolyn\n25 to be a credible witness, as did the jury. The question before\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011556",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 37 of 101 37 M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2018). Here,\n2 the parties and the probation department agree that applying\n3 the current Guidelines would result in a significantly longer\n4 sentence than the application of the guidelines in place when\n5 the defendant committed her offense, whether that is the 2003\n6 or 2004 guidelines.\n\n7 The controlling date for ex post facto purposes is the\n8 last date of the offense of conviction. The 2004 Guidelines\n9 became effective on November 1, 2004. So I must determine if\n10 the last date of the offense was after November 1, 2004.\n11 Because it seeks an increased punishment, the\n12 government bears the burden of persuasion. The government\n13 charged a decade-long conspiracy of sexual abuse that the\n14 indictment alleged ended in 2004. It's proof at trial that the\n15 conspiracy continued in 2004 related to Carolyn. And the\n16 charged conspiracy had to end no later than very early 2005\n17 because that's when Carolyn turned 18 and can no longer be\n18 deemed a victim of the federal sex-trafficking offense charged\n19 which proscribes conduct with respect to individuals under the\n20 age of 18. So the government purports to carry its burden on\n21 this issue based on portions of Carolyn's testimony and some\n22 message pads regarding what occurred in 2004 and 2005.\n23 Let me state clearly, I found, as I said repeatedly in\n24 my factual conclusions on the PSR objections, I found Carolyn\n25 to be a credible witness, as did the jury. The question before",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011556",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Guerrero",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 1, 2004",
      "2003",
      "2004",
      "2005",
      "07/22/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 737",
      "910 F.3d 72",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011556"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses a court case and the application of guidelines for sentencing."
}