DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
539 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
539 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a discussion during a sentencing hearing. Counsel Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether the 2003 or 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, as this is a factual determination tied to when the offense ended and is protected by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judge is hearing this argument after noting the probation department's recommendation for a 240-month sentence, a downward variance from the calculated range.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Counsel |
Addressed by the judge and presents legal arguments to the court regarding sentencing guidelines.
|
| Unnamed Judge | Judge |
Referred to as 'your Honor', presides over the hearing, and engages in dialogue with Mr. Everdell.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The probation department | Government agency |
Mentioned as having calculated a sentencing range of 292 to 365 months and recommending a downward variance to 240 mo...
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Mr. Everdell argues that the Court must resolve who makes the determination about which sentencing guidelines apply.
|
| The government | Government entity |
Mentioned by Mr. Everdell as not having engaged with his arguments in their response.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2023-06-29
A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sentencing guidelines (2003 vs. 2004) and whether the jury should have made the determination based on the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where Mr. Everdell, as 'Counsel', addresses the 'your Honor' (the judge).
Key Quotes (4)
"The probation department has calculated the range at 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment."Source
— Unnamed Judge (implied, summarizing the situation)
(The judge is outlining the sentencing recommendations before hearing arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
Quote #1
"I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell."Source
— Unnamed Judge
(The judge is giving the floor to the counsel to present his arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
Quote #2
"Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that the Court must resolve who is to make the determination about which book like -- when the offense conduct ended, which determines guidelines book applies: the 2003 or 2004 guidelines."Source
— Mr. Everdell
(Mr. Everdell is stating the primary point of his legal argument to the judge.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
Quote #3
"We argue that that is a jury determination because the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause."Source
— Mr. Everdell
(Explaining the legal reasoning behind his argument that the jury should have decided which guidelines to apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document