{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "197",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 197 of 239\na conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to entice minors to travel with the intent to commit an illegal sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). See Indictment ¶¶ 15-17. In other words, Count One and Count Three charge the defendant with agreeing to commit two separate and distinct federal crimes.\n\nB. Applicable Law\n\nThe Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution \"protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.\" North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Accordingly, a defendant cannot be sentenced for multiplicitous charges covering the same crime. \"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.\" United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (\"A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.'\" (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003))).\n\nAlthough the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a defendant does have a right not to be punished twice for the same crime. United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Accordingly, \"[i]f the jury convicts on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant's right not to suffer multiple punishments for the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts.\" Id. Similarly, where the judgment of conviction has already been entered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id.\n\nThe Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's 170 DOJ-OGR-00003131",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 197 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to entice minors to travel with the intent to commit an illegal sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). See Indictment ¶¶ 15-17. In other words, Count One and Count Three charge the defendant with agreeing to commit two separate and distinct federal crimes.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Applicable Law",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution \"protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.\" North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Accordingly, a defendant cannot be sentenced for multiplicitous charges covering the same crime. \"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.\" United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (\"A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.'\" (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003))).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a defendant does have a right not to be punished twice for the same crime. United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Accordingly, \"[i]f the jury convicts on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant's right not to suffer multiple punishments for the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts.\" Id. Similarly, where the judgment of conviction has already been entered on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one count. Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Second Circuit has clarified that District Courts should not rule on a motion to dismiss a charge on multiplicity grounds until the time of sentencing. See id. (vacating district court's",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "170",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003131",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Second Circuit",
      "District Courts"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "North Carolina"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1969"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "18 U.S.C. § 371",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)",
      "395 U.S. 711",
      "169 F.3d 140",
      "482 F.3d 60",
      "320 F.3d 173",
      "459 F.3d 350",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003131"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the concept of multiplicity and double jeopardy. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger filing."
}