mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021736.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "89",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page89 of 93\n76\nPOINT V\nThe Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable\nA. Applicable Law\nA district court commits procedural error if, among other things, it \"makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation\" or \"fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence.\" United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). This Court reviews a district court's\" application of the Guidelines de novo, while factual determinations underlying a district court's Guidelines calculation are reviewed for clear error.\" United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597, 601 (2d Cir. 2015). In explaining the sentence, a district court must show that \"it has considered the parties' arguments and that it has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.\" Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193.\nB. Discussion\nMaxwell argues that the District Court erred by applying a four-level leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. That enhancement applies when a defendant was an \"organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was . . . otherwise extensive,\" which must include the defendant's leadership of at least one other criminal participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 & cmt. n.2. Maxwell contests only whether the evidence showed that she led another criminal participant. (Br.84-85).\nDOJ-OGR-00021736",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page89 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "76\nPOINT V\nThe Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Applicable Law\nA district court commits procedural error if, among other things, it \"makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation\" or \"fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence.\" United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). This Court reviews a district court's\" application of the Guidelines de novo, while factual determinations underlying a district court's Guidelines calculation are reviewed for clear error.\" United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597, 601 (2d Cir. 2015). In explaining the sentence, a district court must show that \"it has considered the parties' arguments and that it has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.\" Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Discussion\nMaxwell argues that the District Court erred by applying a four-level leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. That enhancement applies when a defendant was an \"organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was . . . otherwise extensive,\" which must include the defendant's leadership of at least one other criminal participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 & cmt. n.2. Maxwell contests only whether the evidence showed that she led another criminal participant. (Br.84-85).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021736",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S.S.G."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021736"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and of good quality."
}