mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021038.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "212",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page212 of 221\nA-412\nM6SQmax1\n1 United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2018). Here,\n2 the parties and the probation department agree that applying\n3 the current Guidelines would result in a significantly longer\n4 sentence than the application of the guidelines in place when\n5 the defendant committed her offense, whether that is the 2003\n6 or 2004 guidelines.\n7 The controlling date for ex post facto purposes is the last date of the offense of conviction. The 2004 Guidelines\n8 became effective on November 1, 2004. So I must determine if\n9 the last date of the offense was after November 1, 2004.\n10 Because it seeks an increased punishment, the government bears the burden of persuasion. The government\n11 charged a decade-long conspiracy of sexual abuse that the\n12 indictment alleged ended in 2004. It's proof at trial that the\n13 conspiracy continued in 2004 related to Carolyn. And the\n14 charged conspiracy had to end no later than very early 2005\n15 because that's when Carolyn turned 18 and can no longer be\n16 deemed a victim of the federal sex-trafficking offense charged\n17 which proscribes conduct with respect to individuals under the\n18 age of 18. So the government purports to carry its burden on\n19 this issue based on portions of Carolyn's testimony and some\n20 message pads regarding what occurred in 2004 and 2005.\n21 Let me state clearly, I found, as I said repeatedly in\n22 my factual conclusions on the PSR objections, I found Carolyn\n23 to be a credible witness, as did the jury. The question before\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021038",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page212 of 221\nA-412",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n1 United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2018). Here,\n2 the parties and the probation department agree that applying\n3 the current Guidelines would result in a significantly longer\n4 sentence than the application of the guidelines in place when\n5 the defendant committed her offense, whether that is the 2003\n6 or 2004 guidelines.\n7 The controlling date for ex post facto purposes is the last date of the offense of conviction. The 2004 Guidelines\n8 became effective on November 1, 2004. So I must determine if\n9 the last date of the offense was after November 1, 2004.\n10 Because it seeks an increased punishment, the government bears the burden of persuasion. The government\n11 charged a decade-long conspiracy of sexual abuse that the\n12 indictment alleged ended in 2004. It's proof at trial that the\n13 conspiracy continued in 2004 related to Carolyn. And the\n14 charged conspiracy had to end no later than very early 2005\n15 because that's when Carolyn turned 18 and can no longer be\n16 deemed a victim of the federal sex-trafficking offense charged\n17 which proscribes conduct with respect to individuals under the\n18 age of 18. So the government purports to carry its burden on\n19 this issue based on portions of Carolyn's testimony and some\n20 message pads regarding what occurred in 2004 and 2005.\n21 Let me state clearly, I found, as I said repeatedly in\n22 my factual conclusions on the PSR objections, I found Carolyn\n23 to be a credible witness, as did the jury. The question before",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021038",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Guerrero"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 1, 2004",
      "2003",
      "2004",
      "2005",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "58",
      "3475901",
      "910 F.3d 72",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021038"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It includes a reference to a court case (United States v. Guerrero) and discusses legal guidelines and procedures. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The footer includes a reference to 'Southern District Reporters, P.C.' and a phone number, indicating the document may have been prepared by this organization."
}