mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021580.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "150",
    "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, Page150 of 217\nSA-404\n35\nM6SQmax1\n1 said, I don't need repetition of the arguments in the papers,\n2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're\n3 welcome to.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be\n5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that\n6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative\n7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the\n8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.\n9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was\n10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how\n11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a\n12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what\n13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and\n14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains\n15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is\n16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's\n17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the\n18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.\n19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative\n20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should\n21 consider it as such. Thank you.\n22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?\n23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on\n24 this issue, but thank you.\n25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021580",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page150 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-404",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 said, I don't need repetition of the arguments in the papers,\n2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're\n3 welcome to.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be\n5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that\n6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative\n7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the\n8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.\n9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was\n10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how\n11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a\n12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what\n13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and\n14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains\n15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is\n16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's\n17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the\n18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.\n19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative\n20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should\n21 consider it as such. Thank you.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?\n23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on\n24 this issue, but thank you.\n25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021580",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Sentencing Commission",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021580"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}