DOJ-OGR-00021562.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document ON 386 3536039, Page132 of 217 17 M6SOmaxl 1 MR. EVERDELL: That's correct, your Honor. 2 THE COURT: So I did reject the request for redactions 3 for the reasons explained in my order. And as explained in 4 overruling the objection to paragraphs 39 to 45, Kate's 5 testimony and her statement are relevant to sentencing which 6 I've indicated she may give. And with that, there's objections 7 pertaining to fine and assets and the like. I think we can 8 turn to those when we get to the fine. Mr. Everdell, okay with 9 that? 10 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. So we'll delay the 11 offense level calculation objections and the ones related to 12 the financial penalties for now? 13 THE COURT: Yes, precisely, and we'll pick those up. 14 think otherwise that's it for what I understand to be 15 continuing objections after probation responded to your 16 requests and assertions. Agree with that, Mr. Everdell? 17 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the only one that I would 18 highlight is there was an objection, I believe it's framed 19 according to paragraph 173, which deals with the financial 20 penalties. The government made in their response som 21 representations that we take issue with, but if you're planning 22 on covering that later, we can reserve that till later because 23 it does deal with the financial penalties. 24 THE COURT: Yes, I have objections to 172, 178, 192 25 and 193. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.eee (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021562