mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021626.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "196",
    "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, Page196 of 217\nSA-450 81\n1 the conviction.\n2 The government has asked for an immense sentence. We\n3 recognize that any sentence in this case is going to be\n4 significant and is going to be immensely punishing. The\n5 probation department, based on the original guidelines in the\n6 presentence report, recommended a downward variance to 20\n7 years. That recommendation is now higher than the guideline\n8 range that is applicable in this case. But we ask the Court to\n9 consider the justification that probation articulated in the\n10 presentence report in fashioning a sentence that takes into\n11 consideration that a sentence lower than the guideline range is\n12 appropriate in this case.\n13 The government's sentence asks for the outer limits,\n14 and although we still believe that even the recommendation is\n15 too high, a sentence within the guideline range now may be more\n16 reasonable, but it still does not take into consideration some\n17 of the various factors that we have brought to the Court's\n18 attention in our submission. Simply stated, based upon the\n19 conduct of conviction, the government's request is out of\n20 proportion. Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same\n21 sentence, and he is clearly far more culpable than Ghislaine\n22 Maxwell.\n23 THE COURT: You mean he would have faced the same\n24 guidelines.\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, that is correct, Judge.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021626",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page196 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-450 81",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 the conviction.\n2 The government has asked for an immense sentence. We\n3 recognize that any sentence in this case is going to be\n4 significant and is going to be immensely punishing. The\n5 probation department, based on the original guidelines in the\n6 presentence report, recommended a downward variance to 20\n7 years. That recommendation is now higher than the guideline\n8 range that is applicable in this case. But we ask the Court to\n9 consider the justification that probation articulated in the\n10 presentence report in fashioning a sentence that takes into\n11 consideration that a sentence lower than the guideline range is\n12 appropriate in this case.\n13 The government's sentence asks for the outer limits,\n14 and although we still believe that even the recommendation is\n15 too high, a sentence within the guideline range now may be more\n16 reasonable, but it still does not take into consideration some\n17 of the various factors that we have brought to the Court's\n18 attention in our submission. Simply stated, based upon the\n19 conduct of conviction, the government's request is out of\n20 proportion. Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same\n21 sentence, and he is clearly far more culpable than Ghislaine\n22 Maxwell.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23 THE COURT: You mean he would have faced the same\n24 guidelines.\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, that is correct, Judge.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021626",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "MS. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021626"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}