mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009535.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "605",
    "date": "03/18/13",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 Filed 03/18/13 Page 11 of 41\n\nA base offense level of 36 pursuant to §§ 2T1.9, 2T1.1, and 2T4.1(tax table). PSR ¶ 62.\nAn increase of 2 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(b)(2) because the offense involved sophisticated means. PSR ¶ 63.\nAn increase of 2 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 because the defendant used his skills as a broker and CPA to materially facilitate his design and implementation of the highly-complex financial products that were involved in the different tax shelters. PSR ¶ 64.\nParse has no criminal history points. Thus, with a final offense level of 40, Parse's Guidelines analysis, according to the PSR, yields a final advisory Guidelines range of 292-365 months. However, due to the combined statutory maxima of Counts Twenty and Twenty-Five, the Guidelines term of imprisonment is limited to 276 months. PSR ¶ 103.\nD. The Objections to the PSR\nParse has leveled three objections to the calculation of the Guidelines: specifically, to (i) the loss calculations for Guidelines purposes; (ii) the application of the sophisticated means enhancement, and (iii) the application of the use of a special skill. Parse objects to being held responsible, for Guidelines loss calculations purposes, for the full amount of loss generated by the corrupt endeavor and scheme to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. Parse argues that \"a fair reading of the jury's verdict is that Parse was convicted only for his role in what the [Presentence] Report describes as three instances of fraudulent 'backdating.'\"\nDefendant Parse's position is contrary to law and has no basis in reliable fact. First, Parse's contention that he is being held responsible for acquitted conduct ignores the fact that he was convicted on the broad corrupt endeavor and scheme to defraud. Indeed, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held as follows:\nUnder § 1B1.3(a), the court, in calculating a defendant's offense level, was to take\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00009535",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 Filed 03/18/13 Page 11 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A base offense level of 36 pursuant to §§ 2T1.9, 2T1.1, and 2T4.1(tax table). PSR ¶ 62.\nAn increase of 2 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(b)(2) because the offense involved sophisticated means. PSR ¶ 63.\nAn increase of 2 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 because the defendant used his skills as a broker and CPA to materially facilitate his design and implementation of the highly-complex financial products that were involved in the different tax shelters. PSR ¶ 64.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Parse has no criminal history points. Thus, with a final offense level of 40, Parse's Guidelines analysis, according to the PSR, yields a final advisory Guidelines range of 292-365 months. However, due to the combined statutory maxima of Counts Twenty and Twenty-Five, the Guidelines term of imprisonment is limited to 276 months. PSR ¶ 103.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. The Objections to the PSR",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Parse has leveled three objections to the calculation of the Guidelines: specifically, to (i) the loss calculations for Guidelines purposes; (ii) the application of the sophisticated means enhancement, and (iii) the application of the use of a special skill. Parse objects to being held responsible, for Guidelines loss calculations purposes, for the full amount of loss generated by the corrupt endeavor and scheme to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. Parse argues that \"a fair reading of the jury's verdict is that Parse was convicted only for his role in what the [Presentence] Report describes as three instances of fraudulent 'backdating.'\"",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Defendant Parse's position is contrary to law and has no basis in reliable fact. First, Parse's contention that he is being held responsible for acquitted conduct ignores the fact that he was convicted on the broad corrupt endeavor and scheme to defraud. Indeed, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held as follows:\nUnder § 1B1.3(a), the court, in calculating a defendant's offense level, was to take",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009535",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Parse"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Internal Revenue Service",
      "Second Circuit Court of Appeals"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/18/13"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP",
      "Document 605",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009535"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}