mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010562.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "27",
    "document_number": "670",
    "date": "06/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 27 of 55\n\n82 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). Specifically, when evaluating whether the \"otherwise extensive\" prong applies, the sentencing court must consider \"(i) the number of knowing participants; (ii) the number of unknowing participants whose activities were organized or led by the defendant with specific criminal intent; (iii) the extent to which the services of the unknowing participants were peculiar and necessary to the criminal scheme.\" Carrozzella, 105 F.3d at 803-04. In setting out these factors, the Circuit emphasized that \"[t]he number of knowing participants\" is \"relevant\" to the analysis \"because a criminal scheme with four knowing participants that is aided by unknowing participants is more likely to be 'otherwise extensive' than a scheme with a single knowing participant.\" Id. at 804. Additionally, when evaluating the number of unknowing participants, the Circuit emphasized distinguishing between service providers, such as taxi drivers, from individuals who function more like knowing participants who receive direction from a defendant \"with the specific intent\" to further the criminal activity.\n\nIn this analysis, the Circuit did not articulate or rely on any requirement that a defendant must have supervised at least one knowing participant. Id. Rather, the Court expressly contemplated that the enhancement might apply to an organization involving multiple unknowing participants. See id. Consistent with that understanding, and contrary to the defense's proposed interpretation, the Circuit has affirmed the application of § 3B1.1 under the \"otherwise extensive\" prong to two defendants who were themselves the only two knowing participants identified in the scheme. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d at 99. That outcome makes clear that the Circuit does not require a defendant to supervise any other knowing participant in the scheme. Of particular note, the Rubenstein case applied the \"otherwise extensive\" enhancement where the two knowing participants worked together, with one serving as a \"right-hand man\" to the other, while they organized \"as many as seven participants who were unknowing,\" who worked under the\n\n25\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010562",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 27 of 55",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "82 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). Specifically, when evaluating whether the \"otherwise extensive\" prong applies, the sentencing court must consider \"(i) the number of knowing participants; (ii) the number of unknowing participants whose activities were organized or led by the defendant with specific criminal intent; (iii) the extent to which the services of the unknowing participants were peculiar and necessary to the criminal scheme.\" Carrozzella, 105 F.3d at 803-04. In setting out these factors, the Circuit emphasized that \"[t]he number of knowing participants\" is \"relevant\" to the analysis \"because a criminal scheme with four knowing participants that is aided by unknowing participants is more likely to be 'otherwise extensive' than a scheme with a single knowing participant.\" Id. at 804. Additionally, when evaluating the number of unknowing participants, the Circuit emphasized distinguishing between service providers, such as taxi drivers, from individuals who function more like knowing participants who receive direction from a defendant \"with the specific intent\" to further the criminal activity.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In this analysis, the Circuit did not articulate or rely on any requirement that a defendant must have supervised at least one knowing participant. Id. Rather, the Court expressly contemplated that the enhancement might apply to an organization involving multiple unknowing participants. See id. Consistent with that understanding, and contrary to the defense's proposed interpretation, the Circuit has affirmed the application of § 3B1.1 under the \"otherwise extensive\" prong to two defendants who were themselves the only two knowing participants identified in the scheme. Rubenstein, 403 F.3d at 99. That outcome makes clear that the Circuit does not require a defendant to supervise any other knowing participant in the scheme. Of particular note, the Rubenstein case applied the \"otherwise extensive\" enhancement where the two knowing participants worked together, with one serving as a \"right-hand man\" to the other, while they organized \"as many as seven participants who were unknowing,\" who worked under the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010562",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/22/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "670",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010562"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 27 of 55."
}