DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
be
N
Ww
ws
Oo
OY
~]
oO
WO
a
oO
=
be
N
Ww
=
Hs
Oo
a
OY
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
M6SQmaxl
Document 737
MR. EVERDELL:
No, your Hon
THE COURT:
briefing. am prepared to rule.
The defendant raises
calculation of the guideline range c
discussed, first, she argues I must
rather than the 2004 guidelines.
the application of three sentencing
government's sole objection
guidelines is that Virginia
[ will addre
considered victims. So
and then the government's objections
apply. Generally,
Fect on the date
the guidelines in ef
sentenced. 18 U.S.C.
po
t
~~]
a
oO
a
Ke)
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ex Post Facto Clause is violated if
under Guidelines issued after she's
the new Guidelines provide a higher
Filed 07/22/22
[ thank you counsel
Beyond that,
to the calculation of
I begin by determining which of
Section 3553(a
or.
Page 36 of 101 36
We rest on the papers.
for your thorough
four objections to the
ontained in the
apply the 2003 g
enhancements.
PSR.
the
As we
uidelines
she objects to
The
Roberts and Melissa should be
ss the defens
a sentencing court applies the version of
objections
the Guideline manuals
that the defendant is
) (4) (A) (ii).
But
the
a defendant is sentenced
committed her of
sentencing range
the
version in place at the time of
principle of a case called Peugh v.
(2013).
In that case, a sentencing
of a higher range at the time of
in that
the of
the time of fense, cas
That's
offense.
United States,
569 U.S.
fense and
than the
the
530
court must -- in the case
the sentencing court
Fect when
apply the guidelines in ef
the offens
SOUTHERN D
STRICT REPORTERS, P.C.»
(212) 805-0
300
sentencing than in place at
must
was committed.
DOJ-OGR-00011555
Extracted Information
Dates
Document Details
| Filename | DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg |
| File Size | 638.6 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 90.3% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 1,764 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-03 18:09:35.594189 |