mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010464.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "663",
    "date": "06/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 18 of 77\n\nUnited States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007)). After correctly calculating the guidelines range, the Court must next consider the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50. As directed by the Supreme Court, a district court “may not presume that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is reasonable.” Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009). Rather, after calculating the appropriate guidelines range, sentencing courts must consider the §3553(a) factors, make an individualized assessment, and impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to meet the objectives of sentencing. § 3553(a); Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6.\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)\n\nThe 3553(a) factors include, among other things:\n\n1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;\n\n2. the need for the sentence imposed\n\n(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;\n\n(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;\n\n(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;\n\n(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;\n\n(E) to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and\n\n3. the kinds of sentences available.\n\nIn this case, we respectfully submit that the § 3553(a) factors—including Ms. Maxwell’s “history and characteristics,” the need for the sentence imposed to provide “just punishment,” and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities - weigh heavily in favor of a sentence\n\n17\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010464",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 18 of 77",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007)). After correctly calculating the guidelines range, the Court must next consider the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). Gall, 552 U.S. at 49–50. As directed by the Supreme Court, a district court “may not presume that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is reasonable.” Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009). Rather, after calculating the appropriate guidelines range, sentencing courts must consider the §3553(a) factors, make an individualized assessment, and impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to meet the objectives of sentencing. § 3553(a); Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The 3553(a) factors include, among other things:\n\n1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;\n\n2. the need for the sentence imposed\n\n(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;\n\n(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;\n\n(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;\n\n(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;\n\n(E) to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and\n\n3. the kinds of sentences available.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In this case, we respectfully submit that the § 3553(a) factors—including Ms. Maxwell’s “history and characteristics,” the need for the sentence imposed to provide “just punishment,” and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities - weigh heavily in favor of a sentence",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010464",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2007",
      "2009",
      "06/15/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 663",
      "18 U.S.C. §3553(a)",
      "552 U.S. 38",
      "555 U.S. 350",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010464"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes references to various court cases and statutes."
}