DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
539 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
539 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, capturing a discussion during a sentencing hearing. Counsel Mr. Everdell argues that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether the 2003 or 2004 sentencing guidelines apply, as this is a factual determination tied to when the offense ended and is protected by the Ex Post Facto Clause. The judge is hearing this argument after noting the probation department's recommendation for a 240-month sentence, a downward variance from the calculated range.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Counsel |
Addressed by the judge and presents legal arguments to the court regarding sentencing guidelines.
|
| Unnamed Judge | Judge |
Referred to as 'your Honor', presides over the hearing, and engages in dialogue with Mr. Everdell.
|
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 to 240 mo...
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Mr. Everdell argues that the Court must resolve who makes the determination about which sentencing guidelines apply.
|
| The government | Government entity |
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 as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2023-06-29
A legal argument is presented by counsel (Mr. Everdell) to a judge regarding the appropriate sentencing guidelines (2003 vs. 2004) and whether the jury should have made the determination based on the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where Mr. Everdell, as 'Counsel', addresses the 'your Honor' (the judge).
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
— Unnamed Judge (implied, summarizing the situation)
(The judge is outlining the sentencing recommendations before hearing arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
Quote #1
"I'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell."Source
— Unnamed Judge
(The judge is giving the floor to the counsel to present his arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.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 stating the primary point of his legal argument to the judge.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.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 reasoning behind his argument that the jury should have decided which guidelines to apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00021564.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,557 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page134 of 217
SA-388
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-00021564
SA-388
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-00021564
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document