DOJ-OGR-00021595.json 3.9 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "165",
  4. "document_number": "78",
  5. "date": "06/29/2023",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page165 of 217\nSA-419\n\nM6SQmax1 50\n1 the table is more than 5, as 5 levels. And, thus, the total\n2 number would be 36.\n3 THE COURT: I presume you agree with that,\n4 Mr. Everdell?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: Under the 2003 manual -- I see. The\n7 highest total offense level, increase by 4 from 32 to 36.\n8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.\n9 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Moe. And that produces a\n10 guideline range 188 to 235.\n11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: We agree with that, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Thank you. Same question to you,\n14 Mr. Everdell. Preserving your objections, of course, but\n15 anything new based on what I said?\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I don't think because\n17 the government's response was the one added their request to\n18 add Virginia and Melissa as separate groups, so we do object to\n19 that. I know the Court has already ruled on that. We don't\n20 think the record is adequate to make them separate offense\n21 groups. I understand the Court has already ruled on that, but\n22 we would like to preserve that objection.\n23 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.\n24 Do you want to respond, Ms. Moe?\n25 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court's rulings\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021595",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page165 of 217",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "SA-419",
  20. "position": "header"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "M6SQmax1 50",
  25. "position": "header"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "1 the table is more than 5, as 5 levels. And, thus, the total\n2 number would be 36.\n3 THE COURT: I presume you agree with that,\n4 Mr. Everdell?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: Under the 2003 manual -- I see. The\n7 highest total offense level, increase by 4 from 32 to 36.\n8 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.\n9 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Moe. And that produces a\n10 guideline range 188 to 235.\n11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: We agree with that, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Thank you. Same question to you,\n14 Mr. Everdell. Preserving your objections, of course, but\n15 anything new based on what I said?\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I don't think because\n17 the government's response was the one added their request to\n18 add Virginia and Melissa as separate groups, so we do object to\n19 that. I know the Court has already ruled on that. We don't\n20 think the record is adequate to make them separate offense\n21 groups. I understand the Court has already ruled on that, but\n22 we would like to preserve that objection.\n23 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.\n24 Do you want to respond, Ms. Moe?\n25 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court's rulings",
  30. "position": "main"
  31. },
  32. {
  33. "type": "printed",
  34. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  35. "position": "footer"
  36. },
  37. {
  38. "type": "printed",
  39. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021595",
  40. "position": "footer"
  41. }
  42. ],
  43. "entities": {
  44. "people": [
  45. "Mr. Everdell",
  46. "Ms. Moe",
  47. "Virginia",
  48. "Melissa"
  49. ],
  50. "organizations": [
  51. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  52. ],
  53. "locations": [
  54. "Virginia"
  55. ],
  56. "dates": [
  57. "06/29/2023"
  58. ],
  59. "reference_numbers": [
  60. "Case 22-1426",
  61. "Document 78",
  62. "3536039",
  63. "DOJ-OGR-00021595"
  64. ]
  65. },
  66. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
  67. }