DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
612 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
612 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Attorney |
Speaker arguing a point to the court regarding sentencing guidelines.
|
| MS. MOE | Attorney |
Speaker who is addressed by the court and declines to respond further, resting on a prior briefing.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Title used to address the judge presiding over the court.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of what it was considering when a guideline was created.
|
| Sentencing Commission | government agency |
Cited as the source of authoritative guidance on sentencing.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
| The government | government agency |
Mentioned as the party making an argument in its papers that Mr. Everdell is refuting.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-22
An attorney, Mr. Everdell, makes an argument to the court about the authoritative nature of a sentencing guideline's commentary. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to respond verbally.
Southern District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied location from the name of the court reporting agency, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
|
Relationships (3)
Mr. Everdell addresses the court as 'Your Honor' and presents a legal argument for the court's consideration.
Ms. Moe responds directly to the court's question, addressing the judge as 'your Honor'.
They are on opposing sides of a legal argument in a court proceeding. Mr. Everdell refutes a point made by 'the government' (presumably represented by Ms. Moe), and Ms. Moe is given the opportunity to respond.
Key Quotes (3)
"The government in its papers makes the argument that the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the guideline is. I think that is incorrect."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Stating his disagreement with the government's position on the sentencing guideline commentary.)
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
Quote #1
"This is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should consider it as such."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(Concluding his argument about the weight the court should give to the guideline's commentary.)
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
Quote #2
"No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on this issue, but thank you."Source
— MS. MOE
(Responding to the court's offer to rebut Mr. Everdell's argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,549 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 35 of 101 35
M6SQmax1
1 said, I don't need repetition of the arguments in the papers,
2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're
3 welcome to.
4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be
5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that
6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative
7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the
8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.
9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was
10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how
11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a
12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what
13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and
14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains
15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is
16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's
17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the
18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.
19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative
20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should
21 consider it as such. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?
23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on
24 this issue, but thank you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?
2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're
3 welcome to.
4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be
5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that
6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative
7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the
8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect.
9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was
10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how
11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a
12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what
13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and
14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains
15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is
16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's
17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the
18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending.
19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative
20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should
21 consider it as such. Thank you.
22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond?
23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on
24 this issue, but thank you.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014782
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document