{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "27",
    "document_number": "737",
    "date": "07/22/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 27 of 101\nM6SQmax1\n1 submission about the Court has to consider the weight and\n2 reliability of the evidence when determining a factor -- a\n3 sentencing factor that is going to increase the guidelines,\n4 especially by the amount that this is going to increase it by.\n5 And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad\n6 is not sufficient for that purpose. So if we're relying on a\n7 factual record argument, there is not enough of evidence in the\n8 record to support that the conspiracy ended in November or\n9 December of 2004. Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply.\n10 THE COURT: Okay. I have a question about the\n11 leadership enhancement, as I said, but anything else you want\n12 to raise that you didn't have the opportunity to raise in your\n13 papers, Mr. Everdell?\n14 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point about that\n15 same book issue. I think there was a section of the\n16 government's brief where they were trying to show -- this was\n17 the point about the Court's discretion. We argued the Court\n18 has discretion to sentence as if it were the 2003 guidelines.\n19 I realize that might not be where the Court is headed, but I\n20 would point out --\n21 THE COURT: You mean as a variance argument.\n22 MR. EVERDELL: Exactly. In that section, the\n23 government made reference to an argument that the defendant was\n24 receiving money into the 2007 time period. I believe they\n25 pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00011546",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 27 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n1 submission about the Court has to consider the weight and\n2 reliability of the evidence when determining a factor -- a\n3 sentencing factor that is going to increase the guidelines,\n4 especially by the amount that this is going to increase it by.\n5 And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad\n6 is not sufficient for that purpose. So if we're relying on a\n7 factual record argument, there is not enough of evidence in the\n8 record to support that the conspiracy ended in November or\n9 December of 2004. Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply.\n10 THE COURT: Okay. I have a question about the\n11 leadership enhancement, as I said, but anything else you want\n12 to raise that you didn't have the opportunity to raise in your\n13 papers, Mr. Everdell?\n14 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point about that\n15 same book issue. I think there was a section of the\n16 government's brief where they were trying to show -- this was\n17 the point about the Court's discretion. We argued the Court\n18 has discretion to sentence as if it were the 2003 guidelines.\n19 I realize that might not be where the Court is headed, but I\n20 would point out --\n21 THE COURT: You mean as a variance argument.\n22 MR. EVERDELL: Exactly. In that section, the\n23 government made reference to an argument that the defendant was\n24 receiving money into the 2007 time period. I believe they\n25 pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00011546",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22",
      "2004",
      "2003",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011546"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}