DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal filing
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on July 22, 2022. The Judge is issuing a ruling regarding objections to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), specifically noting the defense's argument to use 2003 sentencing guidelines versus 2004 guidelines. The text explicitly mentions that the government's sole objection to the guideline calculation is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be formally considered victims.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Everdell | Defense Attorney |
States that the defense rests on the papers.
|
| The Court (Judge) | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, issuing a ruling on sentencing guidelines.
|
| The Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) | Defendant |
Referred to as 'she' and 'The defendant'; raising objections to the PSR guideline range calculation.
|
| Virginia Roberts | Victim (alleged) |
Mentioned in the context of the government's objection that she should be considered a victim for sentencing guidelines.
|
| Melissa | Victim (alleged) |
Mentioned in the context of the government's objection that she should be considered a victim for sentencing guidelines.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in the footer.
|
|
| United States Government |
Referred to as 'The government' raising objections.
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-07-22
Sentencing Hearing Ruling
Courtroom (Southern District of New York)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by 'Southern District Reporters' and case number format.
|
Relationships (2)
Government argues Roberts should be considered a victim in sentencing guidelines.
Government argues Melissa should be considered a victim in sentencing guidelines.
Key Quotes (3)
"The government's sole objection to the calculation of the guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
Quote #1
"The defendant raises four objections to the calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
Quote #2
"I am prepared to rule."Source
DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,632 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 36 of 101 36
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.
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
DOJ-OGR-00011555
.
.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00011555
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document