{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "165",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page165 of 217\nSA-419\n\nM6SQmax1 50\n1 the table is more than 5, as 5 levels. And, thus, the total\n2 number would be 36.\n3 THE COURT: I presume you agree with that,\n4 Mr. Everdell?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: Under the 2003 manual -- I see. The\n7 highest total offense level, increase by 4 from 32 to 36.\n8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.\n9 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Moe. And that produces a\n10 guideline range 188 to 235.\n11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: We agree with that, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Thank you. Same question to you,\n14 Mr. Everdell. Preserving your objections, of course, but\n15 anything new based on what I said?\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I don't think because\n17 the government's response was the one added their request to\n18 add Virginia and Melissa as separate groups, so we do object to\n19 that. I know the Court has already ruled on that. We don't\n20 think the record is adequate to make them separate offense\n21 groups. I understand the Court has already ruled on that, but\n22 we would like to preserve that objection.\n23 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.\n24 Do you want to respond, Ms. Moe?\n25 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court's rulings\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021595",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page165 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-419",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1 50",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 the table is more than 5, as 5 levels. And, thus, the total\n2 number would be 36.\n3 THE COURT: I presume you agree with that,\n4 Mr. Everdell?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: Under the 2003 manual -- I see. The\n7 highest total offense level, increase by 4 from 32 to 36.\n8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.\n9 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Moe. And that produces a\n10 guideline range 188 to 235.\n11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: We agree with that, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Thank you. Same question to you,\n14 Mr. Everdell. Preserving your objections, of course, but\n15 anything new based on what I said?\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I don't think because\n17 the government's response was the one added their request to\n18 add Virginia and Melissa as separate groups, so we do object to\n19 that. I know the Court has already ruled on that. We don't\n20 think the record is adequate to make them separate offense\n21 groups. I understand the Court has already ruled on that, but\n22 we would like to preserve that objection.\n23 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.\n24 Do you want to respond, Ms. Moe?\n25 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court's rulings",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021595",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Ms. Moe",
      "Virginia",
      "Melissa"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Virginia"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021595"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}