DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 22, 2022, detailing a judge's ruling on sentencing guidelines. The judge addresses objections from the defense regarding the application of the 2003 versus 2004 guidelines and an objection from the government that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims. The judge explains the legal reasoning, citing the Ex Post Facto Clause and the precedent set in Peugh v. United States, to determine which guidelines are applicable.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. EVERDELL | Counsel |
Speaking to the court on behalf of a client, stating "We rest on the papers."
|
| THE COURT | Judge/Honor |
Presiding over the case, addressing counsel, and beginning to rule on objections to sentencing guidelines.
|
| Virginia Roberts | Potential Victim |
Mentioned in the context of the government's objection that she should be considered a victim for sentencing guidelin...
|
| Melissa | Potential Victim |
Mentioned alongside Virginia Roberts in the government's objection that she should be considered a victim.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Appears in the footer of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case citation "Peugh v. United States".
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-22
A court proceeding where the judge rules on objections to the calculation of the sentencing guideline range for a defendant. The discussion involves which version of the guidelines to apply (2003 vs. 2004), the Ex Post Facto Clause, and the status of potential victims.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (2)
The formal dialogue between them as counsel and judge during a court proceeding.
They are mentioned together in the government's objection that they "should be considered victims."
Key Quotes (4)
"No, your Honor. We rest on the papers."Source
— MR. EVERDELL
(In response to the court, indicating they will not be making further oral arguments.)
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
Quote #1
"I thank you counsel for your thorough briefing. I am prepared to rule."Source
— THE COURT
(Addressing counsel before beginning to deliver a ruling on the pending objections.)
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
Quote #2
"The government's sole objection to the calculation of the guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims."Source
— THE COURT
(Summarizing the government's position regarding the sentencing guidelines.)
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
Quote #3
"But the Ex Post Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced under Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and the new Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the version in place at the time of the offense."Source
— THE COURT
(Explaining the legal principle for determining which version of the sentencing guidelines to apply, citing the case Peugh v. United States.)
DOJ-OGR-00014783.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,680 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 36 of 101
M6SQmax1
M6SQmax1
1 MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. We rest on the papers.
2 THE COURT: I thank you counsel for your thorough
3 briefing. I am prepared to rule.
4 The defendant raises four objections to the
5 calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR. As we
6 discussed, first, she argues I must apply the 2003 guidelines
7 rather than the 2004 guidelines. Beyond that, she objects to
8 the application of three sentencing enhancements. The
9 government's sole objection to the calculation of the
10 guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be
11 considered victims. So I will address the defense objections
12 and then the government's objections.
13 I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals
14 apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of
15 the guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is
16 sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the
17 Ex Post Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced
18 under Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and
19 the new Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the
20 version in place at the time of the offense. That's the
21 principle of a case called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530
22 (2013). In that case, a sentencing court must -- in the case
23 of a higher range at the time of sentencing than in place at
24 the time of the offense, in that case the sentencing court must
25 apply the guidelines in effect when the offense was committed.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
•
•
•
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00014783
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document