mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021037.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "211",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page211 of 221\nA-411\n36\nM6SQmax1\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 guideline\n10   range is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered\n11   victims. So I will address the defense objections and then the\n12   government's objections.\n13   I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals\n14   apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of the\n15   guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is\n16   sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the Ex Post\n17   Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced under\n18   Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and the new\n19   Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the version in\n20   place at the time of the offense. That's the principle of a case\n21   called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013). In that\n22   case, a sentencing court must -- in the case of a higher range at\n23   the time of sentencing than in place at the time of the offense,\n24   in that case the sentencing court must apply the guidelines in\n25   effect when the offense was committed.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021037",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page211 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-411",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "36\nM6SQmax1\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 guideline\n10   range is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered\n11   victims. So I will address the defense objections and then the\n12   government's objections.\n13   I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals\n14   apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of the\n15   guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is\n16   sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the Ex Post\n17   Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced under\n18   Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and the new\n19   Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the version in\n20   place at the time of the offense. That's the principle of a case\n21   called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013). In that\n22   case, a sentencing court must -- in the case of a higher range at\n23   the time of sentencing than in place at the time of the offense,\n24   in that case the sentencing court must apply the guidelines in\n25   effect when the offense was committed.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021037",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "EVERDELL",
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Melissa",
      "Peugh"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "U.S."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "2003",
      "2004",
      "2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "58",
      "3475901",
      "211",
      "221",
      "A-411",
      "36",
      "18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii)",
      "569 U.S. 530",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021037"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}