mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021564.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "134",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page134 of 217\nSA-388\n\nM6SQmax1 19\n1 correct calculation is 360 to 660 months' imprisonment and\n2 argues that a guideline sentence is warranted.\n3 The probation department has calculated the range at\n4 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward\n5 variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment.\n6 Counsel, I have reviewed your written arguments\n7 carefully. I have a few questions I want to ask, but I don't\n8 need to hear repetition of your written arguments, but I would\n9 be happy to give you an opportunity to add anything beyond your\n10 submission if you'd like to make any additional arguments.\n11 I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.\n13 I will largely rely on my written submissions. I just\n14 would like to amplify one or two things.\n15 Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that\n16 the Court must resolve who is to make the determination about\n17 which book like -- when the offense conduct ended, which\n18 determines guidelines book applies: the 2003 or 2004\n19 guidelines. We argue that that is a jury determination because\n20 the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. So the 2003\n21 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make\n22 that factual determination.\n23 I know your Honor is familiar with the arguments we\n24 raised. I would just point out that the government in their\n25 response really did not engage with our arguments about the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021564",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page134 of 217\nSA-388",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1 19\n1 correct calculation is 360 to 660 months' imprisonment and\n2 argues that a guideline sentence is warranted.\n3 The probation department has calculated the range at\n4 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward\n5 variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment.\n6 Counsel, I have reviewed your written arguments\n7 carefully. I have a few questions I want to ask, but I don't\n8 need to hear repetition of your written arguments, but I would\n9 be happy to give you an opportunity to add anything beyond your\n10 submission if you'd like to make any additional arguments.\n11 I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.\n13 I will largely rely on my written submissions. I just\n14 would like to amplify one or two things.\n15 Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that\n16 the Court must resolve who is to make the determination about\n17 which book like -- when the offense conduct ended, which\n18 determines guidelines book applies: the 2003 or 2004\n19 guidelines. We argue that that is a jury determination because\n20 the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. So the 2003\n21 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make\n22 that factual determination.\n23 I know your Honor is familiar with the arguments we\n24 raised. I would just point out that the government in their\n25 response really did not engage with our arguments about the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021564",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "2003",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021564"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}