{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "147",
    "document_number": "204-3",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 147 of 348\nhim/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise.\" Whenever a U.S. Attorney closes a case without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM § 9-27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to determine whether these circumstances exist, and in making that determination, the prosecutor \"should\" consult USAM §§ 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate.\n\nUSAM § 9-27.230 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating prosecution against a person:\n\n1. Federal law enforcement priorities;190\n2. The nature and seriousness of the offense;191\n3. The deterrent effect of prosecution;\n4. The person's culpability in connection with the offense;\n5. The person's history with respect to criminal activity;\n6. The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; and\n7. The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted.\n\nThe USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred. USAM § 9-27.240 directs that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor should weigh \"all relevant considerations,\" including the strength of the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains:\n\n190 A comment to this provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities.\n191 A comment to this provision explains that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offense must also include consideration of the impact on the victim. The comment further cautions that when restitution is at issue, \"care should be taken . . . to ensure against contributing to an impression that an offender can escape prosecution merely by returning the spoils of his/her crime.\"\n\n121\nDOJ-OGR-00003323",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 147 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise.\" Whenever a U.S. Attorney closes a case without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM § 9-27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence or decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction of a federal offense, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate alternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to determine whether these circumstances exist, and in making that determination, the prosecutor \"should\" consult USAM §§ 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "USAM § 9-27.230 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by initiating prosecution against a person:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Federal law enforcement priorities;190\n2. The nature and seriousness of the offense;191\n3. The deterrent effect of prosecution;\n4. The person's culpability in connection with the offense;\n5. The person's history with respect to criminal activity;\n6. The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others; and\n7. The probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred. USAM § 9-27.240 directs that in evaluating the effectiveness of prosecution in another jurisdiction, the federal prosecutor should weigh \"all relevant considerations,\" including the strength of the other jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute effectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences the person will be subject to if convicted in the other jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "190 A comment to this provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities.\n191 A comment to this provision explains that an assessment of the nature and seriousness of the offense must also include consideration of the impact on the victim. The comment further cautions that when restitution is at issue, \"care should be taken . . . to ensure against contributing to an impression that an offender can escape prosecution merely by returning the spoils of his/her crime.\"",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "121",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003323",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204-3",
      "9-27.220",
      "9-27.230",
      "9-27.240",
      "9-27.250",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003323"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a federal case, discussing the considerations for federal prosecution and referencing various sections of the USAM."
}