mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011539.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "737",
    "date": "07/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 20 of 101\nM6SQmax1\n1 issue of the Ex Post Facto Clause being implicated. They want\n2 to cast this as purely a Sixth Amendment issue and cited cases\n3 along the Apprendi lines. But this is an ex post facto issue\n4 properly framed. This decision of when the offense conduct\n5 ended implicates whether or not an ex post facto violation will\n6 occur if the later guidelines is applied.\n7 Under the cases that we've cited, your Honor, we think\n8 that that is an issue for the jury to decide, and it is not\n9 really in the Apprendi line of cases. It is focused on\n10 ex post facto law. I just, for example, highlight for your\n11 Honor the Tykarsky opinion that we cited for the Court. That\n12 is not an Apprendi decision. That is not a Sixth Amendment\n13 decision. In that case, there was an increase in the mandatory\n14 minimum that took effect potentially after the offense conduct\n15 ended. It's interesting that at the time the law was that you\n16 could do that, a judge could make a finding and increase it as\n17 long as it didn't increase beyond the statutory maximum, so\n18 there was no Apprendi issue there. That decision later got\n19 overruled by the Supreme Court, but at the time of Tykarsky, it\n20 clearly wasn't a Sixth Amendment Apprendi issue. They resolved\n21 that issue on an ex post facto basis. This decision about\n22 whether or not the offense conduct ended at a certain time, if\n23 it triggers an increase that implicates the ex post facto\n24 clause is a decision for the jury to make. The government has\n25 not responded to that argument, and we think that that is a\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011539",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 20 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 issue of the Ex Post Facto Clause being implicated. They want\n2 to cast this as purely a Sixth Amendment issue and cited cases\n3 along the Apprendi lines. But this is an ex post facto issue\n4 properly framed. This decision of when the offense conduct\n5 ended implicates whether or not an ex post facto violation will\n6 occur if the later guidelines is applied.\n7 Under the cases that we've cited, your Honor, we think\n8 that that is an issue for the jury to decide, and it is not\n9 really in the Apprendi line of cases. It is focused on\n10 ex post facto law. I just, for example, highlight for your\n11 Honor the Tykarsky opinion that we cited for the Court. That\n12 is not an Apprendi decision. That is not a Sixth Amendment\n13 decision. In that case, there was an increase in the mandatory\n14 minimum that took effect potentially after the offense conduct\n15 ended. It's interesting that at the time the law was that you\n16 could do that, a judge could make a finding and increase it as\n17 long as it didn't increase beyond the statutory maximum, so\n18 there was no Apprendi issue there. That decision later got\n19 overruled by the Supreme Court, but at the time of Tykarsky, it\n20 clearly wasn't a Sixth Amendment Apprendi issue. They resolved\n21 that issue on an ex post facto basis. This decision about\n22 whether or not the offense conduct ended at a certain time, if\n23 it triggers an increase that implicates the ex post facto\n24 clause is a decision for the jury to make. The government has\n25 not responded to that argument, and we think that that is a",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011539",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011539"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a case number, document number, and filing date at the top."
}