{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "36",
    "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 36 of 101 36 M6SQmax1\n\n1 MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. We rest on the papers.\n2 THE COURT: I thank you counsel for your thorough\n3 briefing. I am prepared to rule.\n4 The defendant raises four objections to the\n5 calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR. As we\n6 discussed, first, she argues I must apply the 2003 guidelines\n7 rather than the 2004 guidelines. Beyond that, she objects to\n8 the application of three sentencing enhancements. The\n9 government's sole objection to the calculation of the\n10 guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be\n11 considered victims. So I will address the defense objections\n12 and then the government's objections.\n13 I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals\n14 apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of\n15 the guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is\n16 sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the\n17 Ex Post Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced\n18 under Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and\n19 the new Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the\n20 version in place at the time of the offense. That's the\n21 principle of a case called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530\n22 (2013). In that case, a sentencing court must -- in the case\n23 of a higher range at the time of sentencing than in place at\n24 the time of the offense, in that case the sentencing court must\n25 apply the guidelines in effect when the offense was committed.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011555",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 36 of 101 36 M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. We rest on the papers.\n2 THE COURT: I thank you counsel for your thorough\n3 briefing. I am prepared to rule.\n4 The defendant raises four objections to the\n5 calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR. As we\n6 discussed, first, she argues I must apply the 2003 guidelines\n7 rather than the 2004 guidelines. Beyond that, she objects to\n8 the application of three sentencing enhancements. The\n9 government's sole objection to the calculation of the\n10 guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be\n11 considered victims. So I will address the defense objections\n12 and then the government's objections.\n13 I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals\n14 apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of\n15 the guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is\n16 sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the\n17 Ex Post Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced\n18 under Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and\n19 the new Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the\n20 version in place at the time of the offense. That's the\n21 principle of a case called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530\n22 (2013). In that case, a sentencing court must -- in the case\n23 of a higher range at the time of sentencing than in place at\n24 the time of the offense, in that case the sentencing court must\n25 apply the guidelines in effect when the offense was committed.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011555",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "EVERDELL",
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Melissa",
      "Peugh"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22",
      "2003",
      "2004",
      "2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011555",
      "18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii)",
      "569 U.S. 530"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}