Legal Document - DOJ-OGR-00010555 | Trove Document Archive

Processing Document...

0%

Initializing...

Extraction Summary

2

People

3

Organizations

1

Locations

2

Events

2

Relationships

1

Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document

File Size: 718 KB

Summary

This legal document, filed on June 22, 2022, is a portion of a court filing arguing that the judge (the Court), not the jury, is responsible for determining which version of the Sentencing Guidelines to apply in a case. The filing cites legal precedent from the Second Circuit and the text of the Guidelines themselves to refute the defendant's claim that this factual determination must be made by a jury, particularly regarding the date of an offense for ex post facto considerations.

People (2)

Name	Role	Context
Fusco	Defendant in a cited case	Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Fusco, 560 F. App’x 43, 45-46 (2d Cir. 2014)'.
Morel	Defendant in a cited case	Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Morel, No. 10 Cr. 798 (PAC), 2021 WL 2821107, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 7...

Organizations (3)

Name	Type	Context
Second Circuit	government agency	Cited as having established precedent relevant to the case.
S.D.N.Y.	government agency	Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York court, mentioned in a case citation.
United States	government agency	Party in the cited cases 'United States v. Fusco' and 'United States v. Morel'.

Timeline (2 events)

2022-06-22

Document 670 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.

View

An example offense of conviction was determined by the court to have been committed between October 15, 1991 and October 28, 1991.

defendant

View

Locations (1)

Location	Context
S.D.N.Y.	Stands for the Southern District of New York, a federal judicial district.

Relationships (2)

The Court → professional → The Jury

The document argues that the Court, not the Jury, is responsible for determining which version of the Sentencing Guidelines manual to apply.

The defendant → legal → The Court

The defendant is making a legal argument to the Court, which the document argues the Court should reject.

Key Quotes (1)

"For example, if the offense of conviction (i.e., the conduct charged in the count of the indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted) was determined by the court to have been committed between October 15, 1991 and October 28, 1991, the date of October 28, 1991 is the controlling date for ex post facto purposes."

Source

— Application Note 2 (of the Sentencing Guidelines) (Quoted as an example from the Sentencing Guidelines to support the argument that the court, not the jury, determines the date of the offense.)

DOJ-OGR-00010555.jpg

Quote #1