DOJ-OGR-00010554.jpg
643 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
643 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2004 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual should be applied to the defendant's case. It refutes the defendant's objections, which are based on the Ex Post Facto Clause, by establishing that the criminal conduct continued until December 31, 2004, after the 2004 Manual became effective. The argument is supported by citations to the Guidelines and Second Circuit case law.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | Government agency |
Mentioned as the body that charged an agency with developing sentencing policy.
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
A court whose explanation on a legal matter is cited in the document.
|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation "United States v. Meneilly".
|
Timeline (3 events)
1994-2004
The period during which the offenses of conviction occurred, spanning from 1994 up to and including 2004.
defendant
2004-12-31
The date determined to be the legal last date of the offense conduct for the purpose of applying the Sentencing Guidelines.
Relationships (1)
defendant
→
Adversarial/Legal
→
Court
The defendant is making objections and claims against the Court's role in determining the offense date, which the document argues is wrong.
Key Quotes (3)
"the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was committed."Source
— U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1)
(A quote from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines establishing the rule for which version of the manual to apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00010554.jpg
Quote #1
"the last date of the offense of conviction is the controlling date"Source
— Application Note 2 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1)
(A quote from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines clarifying which date to use when determining the applicable manual.)
DOJ-OGR-00010554.jpg
Quote #2
"[w]here a conspiracy began while one version of the Guidelines was in effect and ended after another version became effective, application of the later version to the coconspirators does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause."Source
— Second Circuit
(A quote from a Second Circuit decision (United States v. Meneilly) explaining that applying a later version of the Guidelines in a conspiracy case is not a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.)
DOJ-OGR-00010554.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,853 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 19 of 55
current version of the Guidelines as representing the most recent views of the agency charged by
Congress with developing sentencing policy.” Peugh, 569 U.S. at 549.
Where the Guidelines have increased after the offense conduct has concluded, “the court
shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was
committed.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1). Furthermore, Application Note 2 provides that “the last
date of the offense of conviction is the controlling date” for determining which manual to apply.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1), app. n.2. That is true even if the Guidelines were amended during the
course of the offense conduct. The Second Circuit has explained that “[w]here a conspiracy began
while one version of the Guidelines was in effect and ended after another version became effective,
application of the later version to the coconspirators does not violate the Ex Post
Facto Clause.” United States v. Meneilly, 28 F. App’x 26, 32 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
Here, the offenses of conviction spanned from 1994 up to and including 2004, as set forth
in the Indictment, and as the proof established at trial. As a result, for Guidelines purposes,
December 31, 2004 is legally the last date of the offense conduct, and the 2004 Manual applies.
In her objections to the PSR, the defendant claims that the Ex Post Facto clause requires the jury,
and not the Court, to determine the last date of the offense of conviction. The defendant further
claims that, as a factual matter, the offense conduct ended before November 1, 2004, the date upon
which the 2004 Manual became effective. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant is wrong
as a matter of law and as a matter of fact. The Court should apply the 2004 Manual.
Congress with developing sentencing policy.” Peugh, 569 U.S. at 549.
Where the Guidelines have increased after the offense conduct has concluded, “the court
shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was
committed.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1). Furthermore, Application Note 2 provides that “the last
date of the offense of conviction is the controlling date” for determining which manual to apply.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1), app. n.2. That is true even if the Guidelines were amended during the
course of the offense conduct. The Second Circuit has explained that “[w]here a conspiracy began
while one version of the Guidelines was in effect and ended after another version became effective,
application of the later version to the coconspirators does not violate the Ex Post
Facto Clause.” United States v. Meneilly, 28 F. App’x 26, 32 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).
Here, the offenses of conviction spanned from 1994 up to and including 2004, as set forth
in the Indictment, and as the proof established at trial. As a result, for Guidelines purposes,
December 31, 2004 is legally the last date of the offense conduct, and the 2004 Manual applies.
In her objections to the PSR, the defendant claims that the Ex Post Facto clause requires the jury,
and not the Court, to determine the last date of the offense of conviction. The defendant further
claims that, as a factual matter, the offense conduct ended before November 1, 2004, the date upon
which the 2004 Manual became effective. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant is wrong
as a matter of law and as a matter of fact. The Court should apply the 2004 Manual.
17
DOJ-OGR-00010554
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document