mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021581.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "151",
    "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, Page151 of 217\nSA-405\n36\nM6SQmax1\n1    MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. We rest on the papers.\n2    THE COURT: I thank you counsel for your thorough\n3    briefing. I am prepared to rule.\n4    The defendant raises four objections to the\n5    calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR. As we\n6    discussed, first, she argues I must apply the 2003 guidelines\n7    rather than the 2004 guidelines. Beyond that, she objects to\n8    the application of three sentencing enhancements. The\n9    government's sole objection to the calculation of the\n10   guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be\n11   considered victims. So I will address the defense objections\n12   and then the government's objections.\n13   I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals\n14   apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of\n15   the guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is\n16   sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the\n17   Ex Post Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced\n18   under Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and\n19   the new Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the\n20   version in place at the time of the offense. That's the\n21   principle of a case called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530\n22   (2013). In that case, a sentencing court must -- in the case\n23   of a higher range at the time of sentencing than in place at\n24   the time of the offense, in that case the sentencing court must\n25   apply the guidelines in effect when the offense was committed.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021581",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page151 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-405\n36\nM6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1    MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. We rest on the papers.\n2    THE COURT: I thank you counsel for your thorough\n3    briefing. I am prepared to rule.\n4    The defendant raises four objections to the\n5    calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR. As we\n6    discussed, first, she argues I must apply the 2003 guidelines\n7    rather than the 2004 guidelines. Beyond that, she objects to\n8    the application of three sentencing enhancements. The\n9    government's sole objection to the calculation of the\n10   guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be\n11   considered victims. So I will address the defense objections\n12   and then the government's objections.\n13   I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals\n14   apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of\n15   the guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is\n16   sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the\n17   Ex Post Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced\n18   under Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and\n19   the new Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the\n20   version in place at the time of the offense. That's the\n21   principle of a case called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530\n22   (2013). In that case, a sentencing court must -- in the case\n23   of a higher range at the time of sentencing than in place at\n24   the time of the offense, in that case the sentencing court must\n25   apply the guidelines in effect when the offense was committed.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021581",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "EVERDELL",
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Melissa",
      "Peugh"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "U.S."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "2003",
      "2004",
      "2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "78",
      "3536039",
      "SA-405",
      "18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii)",
      "569 U.S. 530",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021581"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}