{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "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 18 of 101 18\nM6SQmax1\n1 MR. EVERDELL: I guess in the final version, it\n2 probably pertains to 172.\n3 THE COURT: Thank you.\n4 And with that, no further factual objections that need\n5 resolution, Mr. Everdell?\n6 MR. EVERDELL: Other than the ones we've just\n7 discussed, no, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: Ms. Moe?\n9 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you.\n10 THE COURT: So, with those rulings, hearing no further\n11 objections, with those rulings, I otherwise adopt the factual\n12 recitations set forth in the PSR. As in all cases, the PSR is\n13 sealed and made a part of the record in this matter. If an\n14 appeal is taken, counsel on appeal may have access to the PSR\n15 without further application to this court.\n16 We'll turn now to the guideline calculation. As\n17 counsel is aware, I am no longer required to follow the United\n18 States Sentencing Guidelines, but I am still required to\n19 consider the applicable guidelines in imposing sentence and\n20 must therefore accurately calculate the Sentencing Guideline\n21 range. The parties dispute multiple aspects of the guideline\n22 calculation.\n23 Just to outline the relevant overall calculations, the\n24 defense contends that the correct guideline calculation is 51\n25 to 63 months' imprisonment. The government contends that the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011537",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 18 of 101 18",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. EVERDELL: I guess in the final version, it\n2 probably pertains to 172.\n3 THE COURT: Thank you.\n4 And with that, no further factual objections that need\n5 resolution, Mr. Everdell?\n6 MR. EVERDELL: Other than the ones we've just\n7 discussed, no, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: Ms. Moe?\n9 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you.\n10 THE COURT: So, with those rulings, hearing no further\n11 objections, with those rulings, I otherwise adopt the factual\n12 recitations set forth in the PSR. As in all cases, the PSR is\n13 sealed and made a part of the record in this matter. If an\n14 appeal is taken, counsel on appeal may have access to the PSR\n15 without further application to this court.\n16 We'll turn now to the guideline calculation. As\n17 counsel is aware, I am no longer required to follow the United\n18 States Sentencing Guidelines, but I am still required to\n19 consider the applicable guidelines in imposing sentence and\n20 must therefore accurately calculate the Sentencing Guideline\n21 range. The parties dispute multiple aspects of the guideline\n22 calculation.\n23 Just to outline the relevant overall calculations, the\n24 defense contends that the correct guideline calculation is 51\n25 to 63 months' imprisonment. The government contends that the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011537",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "United States Sentencing Guidelines"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "172",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011537"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}