{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 34\n\nabout the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the OPR report and yet identifies no evidence that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA. The OPR report reflects that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but only after it was signed when Epstein tried to get out of it. OPR Report at 103. Other documents show that attorneys in the Southern District of Florida reached out to other districts for investigatory assistance but not for help negotiating the NPA. Dkt. No. 204-2. Nor would direct approval of the NPA by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General change the meaning of its terms. No evidence suggests anyone promised Epstein that the NPA would bar the prosecution of his co-conspirators in other districts. Absent such a promise, it does not matter who did or did not approve it.\n\nSecond Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorney's office for the district where it was signed. Maxwell identifies nothing in the NPA's text or negotiation history to disturb this presumption. The Court thus concludes that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.\n\nB. The non-prosecution agreement does not cover the charged offenses\n\nThe NPA would provide Maxwell no defense to the charges in the S1 superseding indictment even against an office bound to follow it. The NPA bars prosecution, following Epstein's fulfillment of its conditions, only for three specific categories of offenses:\n\n(1) \"the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2\" of the NPA; namely, \"any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007\" including five enumerated offenses;\n\n(2) \"any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office\"; and\n\n(3) \"any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation.\"\n\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00003680",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "about the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the OPR report and yet identifies no evidence that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA. The OPR report reflects that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but only after it was signed when Epstein tried to get out of it. OPR Report at 103. Other documents show that attorneys in the Southern District of Florida reached out to other districts for investigatory assistance but not for help negotiating the NPA. Dkt. No. 204-2. Nor would direct approval of the NPA by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General change the meaning of its terms. No evidence suggests anyone promised Epstein that the NPA would bar the prosecution of his co-conspirators in other districts. Absent such a promise, it does not matter who did or did not approve it.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorney's office for the district where it was signed. Maxwell identifies nothing in the NPA's text or negotiation history to disturb this presumption. The Court thus concludes that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The non-prosecution agreement does not cover the charged offenses",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The NPA would provide Maxwell no defense to the charges in the S1 superseding indictment even against an office bound to follow it. The NPA bars prosecution, following Epstein's fulfillment of its conditions, only for three specific categories of offenses:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(1) \"the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2\" of the NPA; namely, \"any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007\" including five enumerated offenses;",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(2) \"any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office\"; and",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(3) \"any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation.\"",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003680",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "Office of the Deputy Attorney General",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Federal Bureau of Investigation"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2001",
      "September 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 207",
      "Dkt. No. 204-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003680"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Maxwell, discussing the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. The text is printed, and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}