DOJ-OGR-00021041.jpg
589 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal ruling
File Size:
589 KB
Summary
A page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal) documenting a judge's ruling during sentencing. The judge finds the defendant engaged in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two occasions. The judge overrules a defense objection that argued the sentencing enhancement should only apply if the defendant posed a continuing danger to the public, citing that the text of the Guidelines is unambiguous.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant (She) | Defendant |
Subject of sentencing; convicted of a sex crime; found to have engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited ...
|
| The Judge (I) | Judge |
Speaker; overruling defense objections regarding sentencing guidelines.
|
| Members of Congress | Legislators |
Mentioned in relation to statements regarding recidivism rates.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Sentencing Commission |
Source of background commentary cited by the defense.
|
|
| Congress |
Source of statements regarding sex offender sentencing.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Firm responsible for the transcript.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Referenced in case citation United States v. Sash.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by reporter firm name (likely SDNY).
|
Relationships (1)
Defendant
→
Legal/Judicial
→
Judge
Judge is ruling on defendant's sentencing objections.
Key Quotes (4)
"I readily find she engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021041.jpg
Quote #1
"Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two separate occasions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021041.jpg
Quote #2
"I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis in the Guidelines."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021041.jpg
Quote #3
"legislative history... 'among the least illuminating forms of legislative history.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021041.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,669 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page215 of 221
A-415
A-415
40
M6SQmax1
1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a
2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.
3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity
4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a
5 minor on at least two separate occasions.
6 The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated
7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this
8 enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a
9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this
10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing
11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress
12 who of emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences
13 for sex offenders.
14 I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis
15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start
16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I
17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary.
18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary
19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a
20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the
21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered
22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines,
23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor
24 statements which are "among the least illuminating forms of
25 legislative history." NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929
M6SQmax1
1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a
2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.
3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity
4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a
5 minor on at least two separate occasions.
6 The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated
7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this
8 enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a
9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this
10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing
11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress
12 who of emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences
13 for sex offenders.
14 I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis
15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start
16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I
17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary.
18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary
19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a
20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the
21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered
22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines,
23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor
24 statements which are "among the least illuminating forms of
25 legislative history." NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ...
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00021041
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document