DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
614 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
614 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and a defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, during a sentencing hearing. The judge summarizes the probation department's sentencing recommendation and invites Mr. Everdell to present his arguments. Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should determine which version of the sentencing guidelines (2003 or 2004) applies, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Counsel |
Addressed by the judge and presents arguments on behalf of his client regarding sentencing guidelines.
|
| The Judge | Judge |
Presiding over the case, referred to as 'your Honor'. The judge speaks to Counsel (Mr. Everdell) about sentencing arg...
|
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.
|
| The Court | government agency |
Mr. Everdell argues that the Court must resolve who determines which sentencing guidelines book applies.
|
| The government | government agency |
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, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-22
A discussion during a court proceeding regarding sentencing guidelines, specifically whether the 2003 or 2004 guidelines should apply and who should make that determination.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where Mr. Everdell, as Counsel, is presenting legal arguments to the presiding Judge ('your Honor').
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
— The Judge (summarizing)
(The judge is summarizing the probation department's sentencing recommendation at the start of the hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
Quote #1
"I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell."Source
— The Judge
(The judge is giving the floor to the counsel to present his arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00014766.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 beginning his argument about the applicability of different sentencing guidelines.)
DOJ-OGR-00014766.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 basis for his argument that the jury should decide which guidelines apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00014766.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,556 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 19 of 101 19
M6SQmax1
1 correct calculation is 360 to 660 months' imprisonment and
2 argues that a guideline sentence is warranted.
3 The probation department has calculated the range at
4 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward
5 variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment.
6 Counsel, I have reviewed your written arguments
7 carefully. I have a few questions I want to ask, but I don't
8 need to hear repetition of your written arguments, but I would
9 be happy to give you an opportunity to add anything beyond your
10 submission if you'd like to make any additional arguments.
11 I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.
13 I will largely rely on my written submissions. I just
14 would like to amplify one or two things.
15 Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that
16 the Court must resolve who is to make the determination about
17 which book like -- when the offense conduct ended, which
18 determines guidelines book applies: the 2003 or 2004
19 guidelines. We argue that that is a jury determination because
20 the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. So the 2003
21 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make
22 that factual determination.
23 I know your Honor is familiar with the arguments we
24 raised. I would just point out that the government in their
25 response really did not engage with our arguments about the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014766
M6SQmax1
1 correct calculation is 360 to 660 months' imprisonment and
2 argues that a guideline sentence is warranted.
3 The probation department has calculated the range at
4 292 to 365 months' imprisonment, but recommends a downward
5 variance to a term of 240 months' imprisonment.
6 Counsel, I have reviewed your written arguments
7 carefully. I have a few questions I want to ask, but I don't
8 need to hear repetition of your written arguments, but I would
9 be happy to give you an opportunity to add anything beyond your
10 submission if you'd like to make any additional arguments.
11 I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell.
12 MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.
13 I will largely rely on my written submissions. I just
14 would like to amplify one or two things.
15 Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that
16 the Court must resolve who is to make the determination about
17 which book like -- when the offense conduct ended, which
18 determines guidelines book applies: the 2003 or 2004
19 guidelines. We argue that that is a jury determination because
20 the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. So the 2003
21 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make
22 that factual determination.
23 I know your Honor is familiar with the arguments we
24 raised. I would just point out that the government in their
25 response really did not engage with our arguments about the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014766
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document