mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011559.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "40 of 101",
    "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 40 of 101 40 M6SQmax1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two separate occasions. The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress who of emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences for sex offenders. I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary. United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines, especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor statements which are \"among the least illuminating forms of legislative history.\" NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011559",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 40 of 101 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two separate occasions. The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress who of emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences for sex offenders. I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary. United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines, especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor statements which are \"among the least illuminating forms of legislative history.\" NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011559",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Sentencing Commission",
      "Congress",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011559"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}