DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
543 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
543 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Everdell, and the Court. Mr. Everdell argues against sentencing enhancements for his client, challenging the reliability of evidence like an 'unreliable message pad' and contesting the government's claim that the defendant received $7 million in 2007. The discussion revolves around the applicable sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the 2003 guidelines should be used based on the conspiracy's end date in 2004.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney |
Speaker in the transcript, addressing the Court on behalf of a defendant regarding sentencing guidelines.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Title used by Mr. Everdell to address the judge presiding over the case.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| THE COURT | government agency |
Refers to the judicial body/judge presiding over the case. Acts as a speaker in the transcript.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2004-11/2004-12
The end of a conspiracy, which is argued to have occurred in November or December of 2004, affecting which sentencing guidelines should apply.
2023-06-29
A court proceeding where Mr. Everdell and the Court discuss sentencing factors, guidelines, and evidence.
Relationships (1)
The dialogue shows a formal, professional interaction between an attorney (Mr. Everdell) and a judge (THE COURT) during a legal proceeding. Mr. Everdell addresses the judge as 'Your Honor'.
Key Quotes (4)
"And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad is not sufficient for that purpose."Source
— Mr. Everdell (implied)
(Arguing against the reliability of a piece of evidence being used as a sentencing factor.)
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
Quote #1
"Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply."Source
— Mr. Everdell (implied)
(Concluding an argument that a conspiracy ended in 2004, which would necessitate the use of the 2003 sentencing guidelines.)
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
Quote #2
"Okay. I have a question about the leadership enhancement, as I said, but anything else you want to raise that you didn't have the opportunity to raise in your papers, Mr. Everdell?"Source
— THE COURT
(Addressing Mr. Everdell to allow him to raise new points not covered in his written submissions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
Quote #3
"In that section, the government made reference to an argument that the defendant was receiving money into the 2007 time period. I believe they pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,"Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Contesting a government claim about a financial transaction involving the defendant.)
DOJ-OGR-00021572.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,595 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page142 of 217
SA-396
27
M6SQmax1
1 submission about the Court has to consider the weight and
2 reliability of the evidence when determining a factor -- a
3 sentencing factor that is going to increase the guidelines,
4 especially by the amount that this is going to increase it by.
5 And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad
6 is not sufficient for that purpose. So if we're relying on a
7 factual record argument, there is not enough of evidence in the
8 record to support that the conspiracy ended in November or
9 December of 2004. Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply.
10 THE COURT: Okay. I have a question about the
11 leadership enhancement, as I said, but anything else you want
12 to raise that you didn't have the opportunity to raise in your
13 papers, Mr. Everdell?
14 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point about that
15 same book issue. I think there was a section of the
16 government's brief where they were trying to show -- this was
17 the point about the Court's discretion. We argued the Court
18 has discretion to sentence as if it were the 2003 guidelines.
19 I realize that might not be where the Court is headed, but I
20 would point out --
21 THE COURT: You mean as a variance argument.
22 MR. EVERDELL: Exactly. In that section, the
23 government made reference to an argument that the defendant was
24 receiving money into the 2007 time period. I believe they
25 pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,
SA-396
27
M6SQmax1
1 submission about the Court has to consider the weight and
2 reliability of the evidence when determining a factor -- a
3 sentencing factor that is going to increase the guidelines,
4 especially by the amount that this is going to increase it by.
5 And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad
6 is not sufficient for that purpose. So if we're relying on a
7 factual record argument, there is not enough of evidence in the
8 record to support that the conspiracy ended in November or
9 December of 2004. Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply.
10 THE COURT: Okay. I have a question about the
11 leadership enhancement, as I said, but anything else you want
12 to raise that you didn't have the opportunity to raise in your
13 papers, Mr. Everdell?
14 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point about that
15 same book issue. I think there was a section of the
16 government's brief where they were trying to show -- this was
17 the point about the Court's discretion. We argued the Court
18 has discretion to sentence as if it were the 2003 guidelines.
19 I realize that might not be where the Court is headed, but I
20 would point out --
21 THE COURT: You mean as a variance argument.
22 MR. EVERDELL: Exactly. In that section, the
23 government made reference to an argument that the defendant was
24 receiving money into the 2007 time period. I believe they
25 pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C...
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021572
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document