mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010215.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "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 12 of 41\ninto account, inter alia, the defendant's own acts and omissions, see id. §\n1B1.3(a)(1)(A), as well as \"all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others\nin furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,\" id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), and\n\"all harm that resulted from the acts and omissions specified in subsection[] (a) (1)\n. . . above, and all harm that was the object of such acts and omissions,\" id. §\n1B1.3(a)(3) (emphasis added).\nUnited States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 108 (2d Cir. 2006) (alterations in original). See also United\nStates v. Nash, 338 Fed. Appx. 96, 98, 2009 WL 2901565, at *1 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order)\n(rejecting defendant's claim that he be held liable only for the fraudulent transactions in which he\nwas directly involved; loss should be based on foreseeable loss from fraudulent scheme); United\nStates v. Singh, 390 F.3d 168, 192 (2d Cir. 2004) (court upheld finding of full loss for sentencing\nguidelines purposes, despite some acquittals: \"It matters not that various phases of the execution of\nthe scheme were rejected by the jury for reason or reasons unknown. Singh's opinions regarding the\nlegality of his billing practices were rejected by the jury, which clearly found the existence of an\noverall fraudulent scheme.\"); United States v. Zichetello, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000) (upholding loss\ncomputations in RICO case: \"As to the campaign finance scheme, Hartman is liable as a\nco-conspirator for 'all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions' in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nU.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Because there was evidence that Hartman was well aware of the larger\nscheme, the district court did not err in finding that Hartman was liable for the entire loss suffered\nby the NYCCFB.\"); United States v. Senninger, 429 Fed. Appx. 762, 767, 2011 WL 2688988, at *4\n(10th Cir. 2011) (summary order) (court upheld attributing full loss from mail fraud scheme to\ndefraud the IRS and Colorado Department of Revenue; \"[T]he court looked at the totality of\nSenninger's involvement in that scheme, concluding her actions did not involve 'simply filling in\nblanks on amended returns.' The district court found Senninger 'lent credibility to the entire\noperation. She lent her credibility as having been an IRS auditor to this operation, and she knew she\n10\nDOJ-OGR-00010215",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 Filed 03/18/13 Page 12 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "into account, inter alia, the defendant's own acts and omissions, see id. §\n1B1.3(a)(1)(A), as well as \"all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others\nin furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,\" id. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), and\n\"all harm that resulted from the acts and omissions specified in subsection[] (a) (1)\n. . . above, and all harm that was the object of such acts and omissions,\" id. §\n1B1.3(a)(3) (emphasis added).\nUnited States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 108 (2d Cir. 2006) (alterations in original). See also United\nStates v. Nash, 338 Fed. Appx. 96, 98, 2009 WL 2901565, at *1 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order)\n(rejecting defendant's claim that he be held liable only for the fraudulent transactions in which he\nwas directly involved; loss should be based on foreseeable loss from fraudulent scheme); United\nStates v. Singh, 390 F.3d 168, 192 (2d Cir. 2004) (court upheld finding of full loss for sentencing\nguidelines purposes, despite some acquittals: \"It matters not that various phases of the execution of\nthe scheme were rejected by the jury for reason or reasons unknown. Singh's opinions regarding the\nlegality of his billing practices were rejected by the jury, which clearly found the existence of an\noverall fraudulent scheme.\"); United States v. Zichetello, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000) (upholding loss\ncomputations in RICO case: \"As to the campaign finance scheme, Hartman is liable as a\nco-conspirator for 'all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions' in furtherance of the conspiracy.\nU.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Because there was evidence that Hartman was well aware of the larger\nscheme, the district court did not err in finding that Hartman was liable for the entire loss suffered\nby the NYCCFB.\"); United States v. Senninger, 429 Fed. Appx. 762, 767, 2011 WL 2688988, at *4\n(10th Cir. 2011) (summary order) (court upheld attributing full loss from mail fraud scheme to\ndefraud the IRS and Colorado Department of Revenue; \"[T]he court looked at the totality of\nSenninger's involvement in that scheme, concluding her actions did not involve 'simply filling in\nblanks on amended returns.' The district court found Senninger 'lent credibility to the entire\noperation. She lent her credibility as having been an IRS auditor to this operation, and she knew she",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010215",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Reifler",
      "Nash",
      "Singh",
      "Zichetello",
      "Hartman",
      "Senninger"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "NYCCFB",
      "IRS",
      "Colorado Department of Revenue"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "2d Cir.",
      "10th Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/18/13",
      "2006",
      "2009",
      "2004",
      "2000",
      "2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:09-cr-00581-WHP",
      "Document 605",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010215"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with citations to various court decisions and legal codes. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 12 of a 41-page document."
}