mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010435.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "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 18 of 29\nnot. The government ignores the background commentary to § 4B1.5, which explicitly states that the adjustment only applies to sex offenders “who present a continuing danger to the public.” USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background (emphasis added). In doing so, the government rejects an authoritative statement from the Sentencing Commission about the proper interpretation and application of § 4B1.5. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993) (“[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.”). The government is not at liberty to reject the Sentencing Commission’s instructions, and neither is the Court.\nApplying § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell would directly contradict the intent of Congress and the explicit instructions of the Sentencing Commission and would improperly add over 10 years to her sentencing range. It was not meant to be applied in cases where the defendant is not a danger to the community and poses no risk of recidivism. It should not be applied here.\nB. Applying § 4B1.5 Would Lead to Absurd Results.\nApplying § 4B1.5 would also yield a sentencing range for Ms. Maxwell that is significantly higher than the range for a proven recidivist sex offender – i.e., the type of defendant that Congress and the Sentencing Commission were so clearly targeting with § 4B1.5.\nThe Court should not interpret a guideline in such a way that it would lead to such obviously absurd results. See United States v. Pope, 554 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir. 2009).\nSection 4B1.5 contains two prongs – one that applies to defendants who have been convicted of at least one prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(a)) and one that applies to defendants who have not been convicted of a prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(b)). As discussed above, the purpose of the Act and § 4B1.5 was to increase the sentences given to repeat sex offenders. It follows that convicted sex offenders who re-offend after being released from prison should\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00010435",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 662 Filed 06/15/22 Page 18 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "not. The government ignores the background commentary to § 4B1.5, which explicitly states that the adjustment only applies to sex offenders “who present a continuing danger to the public.” USSG § 4B1.5, cmt. background (emphasis added). In doing so, the government rejects an authoritative statement from the Sentencing Commission about the proper interpretation and application of § 4B1.5. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993) (“[C]ommentary in the Guidelines Manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline.”). The government is not at liberty to reject the Sentencing Commission’s instructions, and neither is the Court.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Applying § 4B1.5 to Ms. Maxwell would directly contradict the intent of Congress and the explicit instructions of the Sentencing Commission and would improperly add over 10 years to her sentencing range. It was not meant to be applied in cases where the defendant is not a danger to the community and poses no risk of recidivism. It should not be applied here.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Applying § 4B1.5 Would Lead to Absurd Results.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Applying § 4B1.5 would also yield a sentencing range for Ms. Maxwell that is significantly higher than the range for a proven recidivist sex offender – i.e., the type of defendant that Congress and the Sentencing Commission were so clearly targeting with § 4B1.5.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court should not interpret a guideline in such a way that it would lead to such obviously absurd results. See United States v. Pope, 554 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir. 2009).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Section 4B1.5 contains two prongs – one that applies to defendants who have been convicted of at least one prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(a)) and one that applies to defendants who have not been convicted of a prior sex offense (USSG § 4B1.5(b)). As discussed above, the purpose of the Act and § 4B1.5 was to increase the sentences given to repeat sex offenders. It follows that convicted sex offenders who re-offend after being released from prison should",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010435",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Sentencing Commission",
      "Congress",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/15/22",
      "1993",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 662",
      "§ 4B1.5",
      "USSG § 4B1.5",
      "508 U.S. 36",
      "554 F.3d 240",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010435"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the application of § 4B1.5 and its implications for her sentencing range. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}