DOJ-OGR-00014774.jpg
623 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
623 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a legal argument by Mr. Everdell before a judge. Mr. Everdell contends that an 'unreliable message pad' is insufficient evidence to increase sentencing guidelines and argues that the 2003 guidelines should apply because the conspiracy in question ended in 2004. He also challenges a government claim that the defendant received $7 million into 2007, labeling it an 'extreme stretch'.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Attorney (inferred) |
Speaking to the Court, arguing about sentencing guidelines, evidence, and financial claims made by the government.
|
| The Court | Judge (inferred) |
Presiding over the hearing, asking questions to Mr. Everdell.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2004-12
The document mentions an argument that a conspiracy ended in November or December of 2004, which would necessitate the application of the 2003 sentencing guidelines.
2022-08-22
A legal argument took place regarding sentencing factors, the reliability of evidence, and the applicable sentencing guidelines.
Courtroom
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where Mr. Everdell addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and presents legal arguments.
Key Quotes (3)
"And this one uncorroborated, unadmitted, unreliable message pad is not sufficient for that purpose."Source
— Mr. Everdell (inferred)
(Arguing that a piece of evidence is not reliable enough to be used as a sentencing factor to increase the guidelines.)
DOJ-OGR-00014774.jpg
Quote #1
"Therefore, the 2003 guidelines must apply."Source
— Mr. Everdell (inferred)
(Concluding the argument that because the conspiracy ended in late 2004, the sentencing guidelines from 2003 are the correct ones to use.)
DOJ-OGR-00014774.jpg
Quote #2
"I believe they pointed to $7 million. I think that is an extreme stretch,"Source
— Mr. Everdell
(Contesting a government argument that the defendant received $7 million into the 2007 time period.)
DOJ-OGR-00014774.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,580 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 27 of 101 27
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,
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
DOJ-OGR-00014774
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014774
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document