mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010745.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "682",
    "date": "06/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 682 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 4\n\nThe Defendant contests whether the remaining four individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—are “crime victims” within the meaning of the CVRA. The Defendant contends, among other things, that the record does not establish that they were under the relevant statutory age at the time of the incidents they describe or that the conduct occurred within the time period charged in the indictment and established at trial. However, the Court need not resolve this question because “the sentencing court’s discretion is largely unlimited either as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). Indeed, 18 U.S.C. § 3661 provides that “[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offence which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.” See, e.g., United States v. Garigen, No. 21-112, 2022 WL 258568, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2022) (summary order) (finding no due process violation in allowing individual to speak at sentencing even assuming they lacked “an express right . . . under the [CVRA],” because “the court was certainly within its power to permit them to speak” under § 3661 and defendant “clearly was free to object or respond to any of the statements that [individuals] made during her sentencing, and the district court was permitted to consider all of these statements as relevant in formulating a sentence” (cleaned up)).\n\nAccordingly, the Court, exercising its discretion under § 3661, will permit Maria Farmer, Ransome, Helm, and Bryant to be reasonably heard at sentencing through written submissions. The Court will therefore allow their written submissions to be part of the record and consider them for what they appropriately may be considered. The Court will, however, exercise its discretion and deny their requests to make an in-person statement, to the extent they so request.\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010745",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 682 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant contests whether the remaining four individuals—Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, and Juliette Bryant—are “crime victims” within the meaning of the CVRA. The Defendant contends, among other things, that the record does not establish that they were under the relevant statutory age at the time of the incidents they describe or that the conduct occurred within the time period charged in the indictment and established at trial. However, the Court need not resolve this question because “the sentencing court’s discretion is largely unlimited either as to the kind of information it may consider, or the source from which it may come.” United States v. Eberhard, 525 F.3d 175, 177 (2d Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). Indeed, 18 U.S.C. § 3661 provides that “[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offence which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.” See, e.g., United States v. Garigen, No. 21-112, 2022 WL 258568, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2022) (summary order) (finding no due process violation in allowing individual to speak at sentencing even assuming they lacked “an express right . . . under the [CVRA],” because “the court was certainly within its power to permit them to speak” under § 3661 and defendant “clearly was free to object or respond to any of the statements that [individuals] made during her sentencing, and the district court was permitted to consider all of these statements as relevant in formulating a sentence” (cleaned up)).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, the Court, exercising its discretion under § 3661, will permit Maria Farmer, Ransome, Helm, and Bryant to be reasonably heard at sentencing through written submissions. The Court will therefore allow their written submissions to be part of the record and consider them for what they appropriately may be considered. The Court will, however, exercise its discretion and deny their requests to make an in-person statement, to the extent they so request.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010745",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maria Farmer",
      "Sarah Ransome",
      "Teresa Helm",
      "Juliette Bryant",
      "Eberhard",
      "Garigen"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/24/22",
      "Jan. 28, 2022"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "682",
      "21-112",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010745"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of 4."
}