DOJ-OGR-00010424.jpg
703 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
703 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell must be sentenced under the 2003 Guidelines rather than the harsher 2004 Guidelines. It asserts that applying the 2004 Guidelines would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause unless a jury, not the judge, found that her criminal conduct continued past November 1, 2004. Since the jury made no such finding, the court is bound to use the earlier guidelines.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the individual to be sentenced, for whom the applicability of the 2003 vs. 2004 Guidelines is being argued.
|
| Julian | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Julian, which is used to support the legal argument.
|
| Tykarsky | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Tykarsky, which is used to support the legal argument.
|
| Harris | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Harris, which is used to support the legal argument.
|
| Torres | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Torres, which is used to support the legal argument.
|
| Marcus | Defendant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Marcus, which recognized the overruling of a previous case.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government agency |
Refers to the sentencing court in Ms. Maxwell's case.
|
| Second Circuit | Government agency |
An appellate court whose holdings are cited as precedent.
|
| 7th Cir. | Government agency |
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Julian.
|
| 3d Cir. | Government agency |
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, mentioned in the citation for United States v. Tykarsky.
|
| 2d Cir. | Government agency |
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, mentioned in the citations for United States v. Harris, United States v. Torres, an...
|
Timeline (1 events)
Argument regarding the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell, specifically whether the 2003 or 2004 Guidelines should apply based on the Ex Post Facto Clause and the need for a jury to determine the end date of the criminal conduct.
Key Quotes (2)
"As it is the lifespan of the conspiracy that determines whether, consistent with the Ex Post Facto Clause, the defendant may be subject to the enhanced penalty [of 18 U.S.C. § 2423], the question whether the alleged conspiracy continued beyond the effective date of the new penalty is one that must be submitted to the jury."Source
— United States v. Julian, 427 F.3d 471, 480-482 (7th Cir. 2005)
(Quoted as legal precedent to support the argument that a jury must decide the end date of a conspiracy for sentencing purposes.)
DOJ-OGR-00010424.jpg
Quote #1
"[B]ecause the communications spanned two different versions of the statute [18 U.S.C. § 2422] with different minimum penalties, the question of whether the violation extended beyond the effective date of the amended version was one that had to be resolved by the jury."Source
— United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 478-480 (3d Cir. 2006)
(Quoted as legal precedent to support the argument that a jury must resolve questions of fact that determine which version of a penalty statute applies.)
DOJ-OGR-00010424.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document