DOJ-OGR-00021581.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document ON A0S 3536039, Page151 of 217 36 Me6eSQmaxl MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. We rest on the papers. THE COURT: I thank you counsel for your thorough briefing. I am prepared to rule. The defendant raises four objections to the calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR. As we discussed, first, she argues I mu rather than the 2004 guidelines. Beyond that, she the application of three sentencing enhancements. government's sole objection to the calculation of t st apply the 2003 guidelines objects to The he guidelines is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered victims. So I will address the defens and then the government's objections. apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of I begin by determining which of the Guidel the guidelines in effect on the date that the defen sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) (4) (A) (11). B 20 a1 22 23 24 25 Ex Post Facto Clause is violated a under Guidelines issued after she the new Guidelines provide a high 's or a defendant is committed her of objections ine manuals dant is ut the sentenced fense and sentencing range than the version in place at the time of t principle of a case called Peugh (2013). In that case, a sentenci of a higher range at the time of the time of the offense, in that he Vv. ng offense. That' United States, court must -- i sentencing than in case the sentencin the o nse was apply the guidelines in ct wh n SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.°ee° (212) 805-0300 s the 569 U.S. 530 n the case place at g court must committed. DOJ-OGR-00021581