{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "40",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 40 of 239\n\nOPR Report at 95. The OPR Report further notes that, thereafter, Epstein sought to avoid complying with the NPA entirely, and his attorneys appealed to Main Justice in the hopes of voiding the agreement. OPR Report at 94-108. That appeal was not successful. Id. In any event, the involvement of Main Justice alone would not begin to establish the very different proposition that Main Justice viewed the NPA as binding any district other than USAO-SDFL, let alone specifically considered and approved such an outcome, or communicated such a promise to Epstein.\n\nFurther still, the record in the civil case makes clear that the USAO-SDFL's position was that the NPA did not bind other districts. In a July 5, 2013 brief, the USAO-SDFL stated:\n\n[T]he Non-Prosecution agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement in any other district in the nation. Neither does the Non-Prosecution Agreement bar prosecution in any district for offenses not identified in the agreement.\n\nGovernment Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 10-11 (S.D. Fla.) (emphasis in original); see also OPR Report at 81, n.125 (observing that a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL \"pointed out that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted 'by any other [U.S. Attorney's] office in the country.'\").\n\nAs the USAO-SDFL has explained, the NPA did not bind other districts, and could not. That is because the USAO-SDFL lacked the authority to do so under applicable Department of Justice guidelines:\n\nSignificantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney's Manual, the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unilaterally bar Epstein's prosecution in any other district in the country: 'No district or division shall make any agreement,\n\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00002974",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 40 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OPR Report at 95. The OPR Report further notes that, thereafter, Epstein sought to avoid complying with the NPA entirely, and his attorneys appealed to Main Justice in the hopes of voiding the agreement. OPR Report at 94-108. That appeal was not successful. Id. In any event, the involvement of Main Justice alone would not begin to establish the very different proposition that Main Justice viewed the NPA as binding any district other than USAO-SDFL, let alone specifically considered and approved such an outcome, or communicated such a promise to Epstein.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Further still, the record in the civil case makes clear that the USAO-SDFL's position was that the NPA did not bind other districts. In a July 5, 2013 brief, the USAO-SDFL stated:",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[T]he Non-Prosecution agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement in any other district in the nation. Neither does the Non-Prosecution Agreement bar prosecution in any district for offenses not identified in the agreement.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 10-11 (S.D. Fla.) (emphasis in original); see also OPR Report at 81, n.125 (observing that a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL \"pointed out that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted 'by any other [U.S. Attorney's] office in the country.'\").",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the USAO-SDFL has explained, the NPA did not bind other districts, and could not. That is because the USAO-SDFL lacked the authority to do so under applicable Department of Justice guidelines:",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Significantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney's Manual, the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unilaterally bar Epstein's prosecution in any other district in the country: 'No district or division shall make any agreement,",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002974",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 5, 2013",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "08 Civ. 80736 (KAM)",
      "Dkt. No. 205-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002974"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its limitations. The document is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}