DOJ-OGR-00021144.jpg
574 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
574 KB
Summary
This document is a legal argument from a court filing, specifically Point V, arguing that a defendant's sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. The core assertion is that the District Court made significant procedural errors by miscalculating the sentencing guidelines, imposing an upward variance without justification, and improperly applying an aggravating role adjustment. The argument is supported by legal precedent establishing the standard of review for sentences.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judiciary |
The court that is alleged to have erred in sentencing the defendant.
|
Timeline (1 events)
The District Court sentenced a defendant, allegedly making several errors: erroneously calculating the guidelines range, imposing an upward variance without explanation, and mistakenly applying an aggravating role adjustment.
District Court
District Court
defendant
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a party in the legal cases "United States v. Cavera" and "Gall v. United States".
|
Relationships (2)
The document cites the case "United States v. Cavera".
The document cites the case "Gall v. United States".
Key Quotes (2)
"deferential abuse-of-discretion standard."Source
— United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d. Cir. 2008)
(Cited as the required standard of review for all sentences.)
DOJ-OGR-00021144.jpg
Quote #1
"must first ensure that the District Court committed no significant procedural errors."Source
— Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)
(Cited to describe the procedural component of a sentence review.)
DOJ-OGR-00021144.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,229 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page97 of 113
POINT V
THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED AND REMANED FOR RESENTENCING AS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING AN INCORRECT GUIDLINE RANGE AND OFFENSE LEVEL.
The defendant’s sentence should be vacated because the District Court erroneously calculated the guidelines range; imposed an upward variance, without providing the required explanation; and mistakenly applied the aggravating role adjustment. Accordingly, the sentence must be vacated and remanded back to the District Court for re-sentencing, or – in the interest of justice - the defendant’s sentence should be substantially reduced.
A. Standard of Review.
The standard of review for all sentences requires a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d. Cir. 2008). A review has two components: procedural and substantive. Id. The procedural review “must first ensure that the District Court committed no significant procedural errors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Here, the District Court improperly calculated the guidelines range in the first instance and then deviated upwards without any explanation for doing so.
82
DOJ-OGR-00021144
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document