{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "152",
    "document_number": "293-1",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 152 of 349\n\ncooperation as part of a plea agreement, or compelling cooperation under a \"use immunity\" order. The comment observes that these alternative means \"are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct\" and \"should be given serious consideration in the first instance.\" USAM §§ 9-27.620 and 9-27.630 set forth considerations a prosecutor should take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement. Generally, the U.S. Attorney has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement. USAM § 9-27.600 comment. However, USAM § 9-27.640 directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his or her designee, when the person is someone who \"is likely to become of major public interest.\"\n\nThese USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation.\n\n5. USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity\n\nNothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant. Instead, the provision that addresses immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See USAM §§ 9-23.100 et seq.\n\n6. USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest\n\nDepartment employees are expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all ethics-related laws, rules, regulations, and policies. See, generally, USAM § 1-4.000 et seq. Specifically, a government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an interest can be imputed to him. See 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401-402. In addition, a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which his impartiality could be questioned. If a conflict of interest exists, in order for the employee to participate in the matter, the head of the employee's component, with the concurrence of an ethics official, must make a determination that the interest of the government in the employee's participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of the Department's programs and operations. The determination must be made in writing. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.501-502.\n\nB. Other Department Policies\n\n1. Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges\n\nThe Attorney General has the responsibility for establishing prosecutorial priorities for the Department. Over the span of several decades, each successive Attorney General has articulated those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors. As applicable here, on September 22, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding \"Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing\" (Ashcroft Memo). The Ashcroft Memo, which explicitly superseded all previous Departmental guidance on the subject, set forth policies \"designed to ensure that all federal\n\n125\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004449",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 152 of 349",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "cooperation as part of a plea agreement, or compelling cooperation under a \"use immunity\" order. The comment observes that these alternative means \"are clearly preferable to permitting an offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct\" and \"should be given serious consideration in the first instance.\" USAM §§ 9-27.620 and 9-27.630 set forth considerations a prosecutor should take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement. Generally, the U.S. Attorney has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement. USAM § 9-27.600 comment. However, USAM § 9-27.640 directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his or her designee, when the person is someone who \"is likely to become of major public interest.\"\n\nThese USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5. USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity\n\nNothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant. Instead, the provision that addresses immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See USAM §§ 9-23.100 et seq.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6. USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest\n\nDepartment employees are expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all ethics-related laws, rules, regulations, and policies. See, generally, USAM § 1-4.000 et seq. Specifically, a government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an interest can be imputed to him. See 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401-402. In addition, a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any matter in which his impartiality could be questioned. If a conflict of interest exists, in order for the employee to participate in the matter, the head of the employee's component, with the concurrence of an ethics official, must make a determination that the interest of the government in the employee's participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the integrity of the Department's programs and operations. The determination must be made in writing. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.501-502.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Other Department Policies\n\n1. Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges\n\nThe Attorney General has the responsibility for establishing prosecutorial priorities for the Department. Over the span of several decades, each successive Attorney General has articulated those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors. As applicable here, on September 22, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding \"Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing\" (Ashcroft Memo). The Ashcroft Memo, which explicitly superseded all previous Departmental guidance on the subject, set forth policies \"designed to ensure that all federal",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "125",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004449",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "John Ashcroft"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21",
      "September 22, 2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "293-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004449"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. It contains references to various legal statutes and Department of Justice policies. The text is well-formatted and mostly clear, with some technical legal language."
}