{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "240 of 348",
    "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 240 of 348\n\nthe USAO's interpretation of the agreement and \"the use of Section 2255.\" The Starr and Lefkowitz letter asserted it was \"wholly inappropriate\" for the USAO to send the proposed victim notification letter \"under any circumstances,\" and \"strongly urg[ed]\" Acosta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able \"to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher.\"\n\nThe following day, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz, with copies to Acosta and Villafaña, asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings as \"other relief\" to which they were entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and \"the earliest possible\" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea.314 (Emphasis in original). Sloman added:\n\nJust as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [the CVRA], these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.315\n\nSloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafaña or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns: \"Again, federal law requires that victims have the 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case.'\" Sloman advised the defense: \"The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement.\"\n\nAlong with this letter, Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense. The letter stated that \"the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed,\" Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing:\n\nAs I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at _____ a.m., before Judge Sandra K. McSorley,\n\n314 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B) and (c)(3).\n315 Emphasis in original. Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to \"federalize\" a state plea, but \"is simply informing the victims of their rights.\" Villafaña informed OPR that Sloman approved and signed the letter, but she was the primary author of the document. OPR notes that Villafaña was the principal author of most correspondence in the Epstein case, and that following the signing of the NPA, regardless of whether the letter went out with her, Sloman's, or Acosta's signature, the three attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence before a final version was sent to the defense.\n\n214\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003416",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 240 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the USAO's interpretation of the agreement and \"the use of Section 2255.\" The Starr and Lefkowitz letter asserted it was \"wholly inappropriate\" for the USAO to send the proposed victim notification letter \"under any circumstances,\" and \"strongly urg[ed]\" Acosta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able \"to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher.\"",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The following day, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz, with copies to Acosta and Villafaña, asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings as \"other relief\" to which they were entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and \"the earliest possible\" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea.314 (Emphasis in original). Sloman added:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [the CVRA], these sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.315",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafaña or the FBI case agent with questions or concerns: \"Again, federal law requires that victims have the 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case.'\" Sloman advised the defense: \"The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Along with this letter, Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense. The letter stated that \"the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed,\" Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges. Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on December 14, 2007, at _____ a.m., before Judge Sandra K. McSorley,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "314 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B) and (c)(3).\n315 Emphasis in original. Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to \"federalize\" a state plea, but \"is simply informing the victims of their rights.\" Villafaña informed OPR that Sloman approved and signed the letter, but she was the primary author of the document. OPR notes that Villafaña was the principal author of most correspondence in the Epstein case, and that following the signing of the NPA, regardless of whether the letter went out with her, Sloman's, or Acosta's signature, the three attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence before a final version was sent to the defense.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "214",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003416",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Starr",
      "Lefkowitz",
      "Acosta",
      "Villafaña",
      "Sloman",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Fisher",
      "Sandra K. McSorley"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "FBI",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "December 14, 2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204-3",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2255",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3771",
      "42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003416"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. It discusses the USAO's interpretation of an agreement and the use of Section 2255. The document includes footnotes with references to specific laws and regulations."
}