DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE M6SQmaxl correct calculation is 360 argues that a guideline sen Document 737 to 660 months' The probation depa 292 to 365 months' imprison 240 m variance to a term of Counsel, [ have a 1.€ Filed 07/22/22 Page 19 of 101 19 imprisonment and 1s warranted. rtment has calculated the range at me on carefully. need to hear repetition of few questions yo nt, but ths' ur writt be happy to give you an oppor submission if I want recommends a downward imprisonment. I have reviewed your written arguments I don't to ask, but ten arguments, but I would tunity to add anything beyond your you'd like to make any additional arguments. T'll hear from you now, Mr. Everdell. MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor. [ will largely rely on my written submissions. just would like to amplify one or two things. Your Honor, our initial argument, of course, is that the Court must resolve who which book lik determines guidelines book guidelines. We argue that the issue implicates the Ex Post Facto Clause. is when the offens applies: to make the determination about conduct ended, which the 2003 or 2004 that is a jury determination because So the 2003 guidelines must apply because the jury was never asked to make that factual determination. I know your Honor is familiar with the arguments we raised. I would just point out that the government in their response really did not engage with our arguments about the SOUTHERN D ST R CT RE PORTERS, P.C.* (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011538