DOJ-OGR-00021145.jpg
619 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate argument)
File Size:
619 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. It argues 'Procedural Errors' regarding the sentencing of a defendant (identified by the sentencing date of June 28, 2022, as likely Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically claiming the District Court miscalculated sentencing guidelines and adhered to a pre-determined 240-month sentence despite errors in the calculation range. It references the Presentence Report (PSR) and the 'SH' (Sentencing Hearing).
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the sentencing and appeal; received a 240-month sentence. (Contextually likely Ghislaine Maxwell based on ...
|
| The District Court | Judge/Judicial Body |
Imposed the sentence; accused of miscalculating guidelines and failing to account for variances.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The court that issued the original sentence.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from footer 'DOJ-OGR').
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
Court imposed sentence on defendant.
Key Quotes (3)
"The court's initial miscalculation of the guidelines range carried serious consequences for the defendant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021145.jpg
Quote #1
"The court based its sentencing decision of 240 months on a miscalculation and then adhered to its pre-determined sentence"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021145.jpg
Quote #2
"Numerical references preceded by “SH” are to the Sentencing Hearing on June 28, 2022."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021145.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,499 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page98 of 113
B. Procedural Errors.
The Presentence Report (“PSR”), using the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines, initially calculated a guidelines range of 292-365 months, based on a total offense level of 40 and a criminal history category of I, but recommended a downward variance to 240 months’ imprisonment. SH19.14
The District Court, using the 2003 Guidelines, initially miscalculated the applicable guidelines range. After realizing its error and adjusting to the correct guideline range, the court imposed a sentence above the corrected guidelines range without accounting for the upward variance. The court's initial miscalculation of the guidelines range carried serious consequences for the defendant, as it appears that the court believed it was imposing a guidelines sentence when, in fact, it imposed a sentence above the guideline range. After the court’s calculation error was pointed out, and the range was significantly reduced, the court did not amend its sentence, which then became an upward variance.
The PSR delineated mitigating factors and reasons for the downward variance. But the court simply stated that it agreed with the PSR’s recommendation of 240 months, without addressing the variance. The court based its sentencing decision of 240 months on a miscalculation and then adhered to its pre-determined sentence
14 Numerical references preceded by “SH” are to the Sentencing Hearing on June 28, 2022.
83
DOJ-OGR-00021145
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document