mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010422.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "662",
    "date": "06/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 662 Filed 06/15/22 Page 5 of 29\n\nGhislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this memorandum in support of her objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (\"PSR\") and her claim that the correct sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (\"USSG\" or the \"Guidelines\") is 51-63 months, not the 292-365 month range calculated by the U.S. Probation Office (\"Probation\") in the PSR. As set forth more fully below, the lower range is correctly calculated because (1) the 2003 Guidelines apply to Ms. Maxwell's offense conduct, not the 2004 Guidelines; and (2) the enhancements under § 4B1.5 (repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors), § 3B1.1 (aggravating role), and § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) (use of undue influence) do not apply.1\n\nARGUMENT\n\nI. The 2003 Guidelines Apply to the Offense Conduct\n\nBefore determining the applicable sentencing range, the Court must first resolve the threshold issue of whether the 2003 Guidelines or the 2004 Guidelines applies to the criminal conduct in this case. It is well-settled that it is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause for a sentencing court to apply a version of the Guidelines that did not come into effect until after the criminal conduct was complete if it provides for a higher sentencing range. See Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 532-33 (2013) (\"[T]here is an ex post facto violation when a defendant is sentenced under Guidelines promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new version provides a higher applicable Guidelines sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense.\").\n\nThere is no dispute that the 2004 Guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 2004, call for a much harsher sentence than the 2003 Guidelines. If the Court applied all of the same\n\n1 This memorandum sets forth arguments concerning the proper Guidelines calculation. Ms. Maxwell's arguments for why the Court should grant a substantial downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range are addressed in a separate submission entitled Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010422",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 662 Filed 06/15/22 Page 5 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this memorandum in support of her objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (\"PSR\") and her claim that the correct sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (\"USSG\" or the \"Guidelines\") is 51-63 months, not the 292-365 month range calculated by the U.S. Probation Office (\"Probation\") in the PSR. As set forth more fully below, the lower range is correctly calculated because (1) the 2003 Guidelines apply to Ms. Maxwell's offense conduct, not the 2004 Guidelines; and (2) the enhancements under § 4B1.5 (repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors), § 3B1.1 (aggravating role), and § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) (use of undue influence) do not apply.1",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The 2003 Guidelines Apply to the Offense Conduct",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Before determining the applicable sentencing range, the Court must first resolve the threshold issue of whether the 2003 Guidelines or the 2004 Guidelines applies to the criminal conduct in this case. It is well-settled that it is a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause for a sentencing court to apply a version of the Guidelines that did not come into effect until after the criminal conduct was complete if it provides for a higher sentencing range. See Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 532-33 (2013) (\"[T]here is an ex post facto violation when a defendant is sentenced under Guidelines promulgated after he committed his criminal acts and the new version provides a higher applicable Guidelines sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense.\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There is no dispute that the 2004 Guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 2004, call for a much harsher sentence than the 2003 Guidelines. If the Court applied all of the same",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 This memorandum sets forth arguments concerning the proper Guidelines calculation. Ms. Maxwell's arguments for why the Court should grant a substantial downward variance from the advisory Guidelines range are addressed in a separate submission entitled Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010422",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Probation Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/15/22",
      "November 1, 2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 662",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010422",
      "569 U.S. 530"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}