mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021144.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "97 of 113",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page97 of 113\n\nPOINT V\n\nTHE SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED AND REMANED FOR RESENTENCING AS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING AN INCORRECT GUIDELINE RANGE AND OFFENSE LEVEL.\n\nThe defendant's sentence should be vacated because the District Court erroneously calculated the guidelines range; imposed an upward variance, without providing the required explanation; and mistakenly applied the aggravating role adjustment. Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and remanded back to the District Court for re-sentencing, or - in the interest of justice - the defendant's sentence should be substantially reduced.\n\nA. Standard of Review.\n\nThe standard of review for all sentences requires a \"deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.\" United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d. Cir. 2008). A review has two components: procedural and substantive. Id. The procedural review \"must first ensure that the District Court committed no significant procedural errors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Here, the District Court improperly calculated the guidelines range in the first instance and then deviated upwards without any explanation for doing so.\n\n82\nDOJ-OGR-00021144",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page97 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT V\n\nTHE SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED AND REMANED FOR RESENTENCING AS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING AN INCORRECT GUIDELINE RANGE AND OFFENSE LEVEL.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's sentence should be vacated because the District Court erroneously calculated the guidelines range; imposed an upward variance, without providing the required explanation; and mistakenly applied the aggravating role adjustment. Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and remanded back to the District Court for re-sentencing, or - in the interest of justice - the defendant's sentence should be substantially reduced.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Standard of Review.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The standard of review for all sentences requires a \"deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.\" United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d. Cir. 2008). A review has two components: procedural and substantive. Id. The procedural review \"must first ensure that the District Court committed no significant procedural errors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Here, the District Court improperly calculated the guidelines range in the first instance and then deviated upwards without any explanation for doing so.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "82",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021144",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "District Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "2007",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021144"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sentencing case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}