{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34",
    "document_number": "663",
    "date": "06/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 34 of 77\n\nsegregated due to the high-profile nature of her case is belied by the fact that the case and the inmate are still high profile, yet Ms. Maxwell is now in general population.\n\nIf a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal - if it is arbitrary and purposeless- a court may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment and may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979).\n\nFailing to implement reasonable alternatives suggests that the decision to keep her restricted was made with no legitimate penological purpose and amounts to impermissible punishment.22\n\nProportionality Supports a Hard-Time Credit\n\nThe principle of proportionality - a core principle of the Eighth Amendment 23 and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 24 - requires that sentences should be relative to the crimes committed.25 The Guidelines Manual states that one of the objectives at the core of the Sentencing Reform Act is \"proportionality in sentencing through a system that imposes appropriately different sentences for criminal conduct of differing severity.\" 26 If inmates in isolation or supermax detention suffer\n\n22 Excepting inmates charged with terrorism, disciplined for severe institutional infractions and violence, and Mexican drug lord \"El Chapo\", Ms. Maxwell has been subjected to the most unusual and punitive form of pretrial detention. Accordingly, it is appropriate to make a sentencing submission that exposes the unfairness of her detention in the hope that the government (e.g., DOJ, BOP, and prosecutors) not repeat such disparate treatment and courts recognize that it cannot abandon its supervisory powers to permit BOP bureaucrats to exercise administrative measures without accountability.\n\n23 \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.\" U.S. Const. amend xiii.\n\n24 USSG, Part A, §§ 2-5 (2021).\n\n25 See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 284-90 (1983) (discussing the longstanding principle that a punishment should be proportionate to the crime).\n\n26 USSG, Part A, §3. The most basic objective is to \"combat crime through an effective, fair sentencing system\" through (i) honesty in sentencing (that is, removing the power of the parole commission to reduce the term to be served); (ii) reasonable uniformity in sentencing - by reducing the wide disparity of sentences for similar offenses; and (iii) proportionate sentences. See id. at §§2-3.\n\n33\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010480",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 34 of 77",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "segregated due to the high-profile nature of her case is belied by the fact that the case and the inmate are still high profile, yet Ms. Maxwell is now in general population.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal - if it is arbitrary and purposeless- a court may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment and may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539 (1979).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Failing to implement reasonable alternatives suggests that the decision to keep her restricted was made with no legitimate penological purpose and amounts to impermissible punishment.22",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Proportionality Supports a Hard-Time Credit",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The principle of proportionality - a core principle of the Eighth Amendment 23 and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 24 - requires that sentences should be relative to the crimes committed.25 The Guidelines Manual states that one of the objectives at the core of the Sentencing Reform Act is \"proportionality in sentencing through a system that imposes appropriately different sentences for criminal conduct of differing severity.\" 26 If inmates in isolation or supermax detention suffer",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22 Excepting inmates charged with terrorism, disciplined for severe institutional infractions and violence, and Mexican drug lord \"El Chapo\", Ms. Maxwell has been subjected to the most unusual and punitive form of pretrial detention. Accordingly, it is appropriate to make a sentencing submission that exposes the unfairness of her detention in the hope that the government (e.g., DOJ, BOP, and prosecutors) not repeat such disparate treatment and courts recognize that it cannot abandon its supervisory powers to permit BOP bureaucrats to exercise administrative measures without accountability.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23 \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.\" U.S. Const. amend xiii.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24 USSG, Part A, §§ 2-5 (2021).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25 See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 284-90 (1983) (discussing the longstanding principle that a punishment should be proportionate to the crime).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26 USSG, Part A, §3. The most basic objective is to \"combat crime through an effective, fair sentencing system\" through (i) honesty in sentencing (that is, removing the power of the parole commission to reduce the term to be served); (ii) reasonable uniformity in sentencing - by reducing the wide disparity of sentences for similar offenses; and (iii) proportionate sentences. See id. at §§2-3.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "33",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010480",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "El Chapo"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ",
      "BOP"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/15/22",
      "1979",
      "2021",
      "1983"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 663",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010480"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the proportionality of her detention and sentencing. The text includes references to various legal precedents and guidelines."
}