DOJ-OGR-00014787.jpg
658 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
658 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on August 22, 2022. A judge is overruling an objection from the defense concerning a sentencing enhancement for a defendant convicted of a sex crime. The judge asserts that the clear text of the Sentencing Guidelines is unambiguous and binding, and cannot be overridden by background commentary from the Sentencing Commission or scattered legislative history, which the judge deems unreliable.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sash | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005)'.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sentencing Commission | government agency |
Mentioned as the source of background commentary cited by the defense.
|
| Congress | government agency |
Members of Congress are mentioned as having made statements about enhancing sentences for sex offenders.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
| NLRB | government agency |
Appears in the case citation 'NLRB v. SW General, Inc.'.
|
| SW General, Inc. | company |
Appears in the case citation 'NLRB v. SW General, Inc.'.
|
| United States | government agency |
Appears as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Sash'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-22
A judge overrules a defendant's objection regarding a sentencing enhancement, stating that the unambiguous text of the Sentencing Guidelines must be followed over background commentary or legislative history.
Unnamed Judge
Unnamed Defendant
Key Quotes (1)
"among the least illuminating forms of legislative history."Source
— NLRB v. SW General, Inc.
(Quoted by the judge to dismiss the defense's reliance on a few floor statements from Congress as a basis for interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines.)
DOJ-OGR-00014787.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,658 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 40 of 101
M6SQmaxl
M6SQmaxl
1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a
2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.
3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity
4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a
5 minor on at least two separate occasions.
6 The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated
7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this
8 enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a
9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this
10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing
11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress
12 who of emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences
13 for sex offenders.
14 I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis
15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start
16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I
17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary.
18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary
19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a
20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the
21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered
22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines,
23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor
24 statements which are "among the least illuminating forms of
25 legislative history." NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929
2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.
3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity
4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a
5 minor on at least two separate occasions.
6 The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated
7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this
8 enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a
9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this
10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing
11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress
12 who of emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences
13 for sex offenders.
14 I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis
15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start
16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I
17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary.
18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary
19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a
20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the
21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered
22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines,
23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor
24 statements which are "among the least illuminating forms of
25 legislative history." NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014787
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014787
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document