mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021326.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "154",
    "document_number": "77",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page154 of 258\nSA-152\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 152 of 348\nprosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives\" of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the PROTECT Act \"in their charging, case disposition, and sentencing practices.\"195\nThe Ashcroft Memo directed that, \"in all federal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case,\" except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or designated supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances. The Ashcroft Memo cautioned that a charge is not \"readily provable\" if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft Memo explains that the \"basic policy\" \"requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all charges that are determined to be readily provable\" and would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines.\nThe policy set forth six exceptions, including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor to decline to pursue readily provable charges \"in other exceptional circumstances\" with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or \"designated supervisory attorney.\" As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be appropriate, the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S. Attorney's Office is \"particularly over-burdened,\" the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve. The Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that \"[c]harges may be declined . . . pursuant to a plea agreement only to the extent consistent\" with the policies established by the Memo.\nOn January 28, 2005, Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum entitled \"Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing.\" That memorandum reiterated that federal prosecutors \"must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offenses,\" and defined that term as the offenses that would \"generate the most substantial sentence\" under the Sentencing Guidelines, any applicable mandatory minimum, and any statutorily required consecutive sentence.\nImportantly, although the Ashcroft and Comey memoranda limit an individual line prosecutor's ability to decline \"readily provable\" charges in their entirety, no such restriction is placed upon the U.S. Attorneys, who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy. In addition, the policy applies to \"readily provable\" charges, thus inherently allowing a prosecutor a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Those Guidelines were the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–21, 117 Stat. 650, was directed at preventing child abuse. It included a variety of provisions designed to improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against children. Among other things, the PROTECT Act provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses, such as those involving multiple occasions of prohibited sexual conduct or those involving material with depictions of violence or with specified numbers of images.\n195 The Ashcroft Memo was issued before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range.\n126\nDOJ-OGR-00021326",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page154 of 258\nSA-152",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 152 of 348",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "prosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives\" of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Sentencing Guidelines, and the PROTECT Act \"in their charging, case disposition, and sentencing practices.\"195\nThe Ashcroft Memo directed that, \"in all federal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case,\" except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or designated supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances. The Ashcroft Memo cautioned that a charge is not \"readily provable\" if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either the law or the evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft Memo explains that the \"basic policy\" \"requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all charges that are determined to be readily provable\" and would yield the most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The policy set forth six exceptions, including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor to decline to pursue readily provable charges \"in other exceptional circumstances\" with the written or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or \"designated supervisory attorney.\" As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be appropriate, the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S. Attorney's Office is \"particularly over-burdened,\" the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve. The Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that \"[c]harges may be declined . . . pursuant to a plea agreement only to the extent consistent\" with the policies established by the Memo.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On January 28, 2005, Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum entitled \"Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing.\" That memorandum reiterated that federal prosecutors \"must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offenses,\" and defined that term as the offenses that would \"generate the most substantial sentence\" under the Sentencing Guidelines, any applicable mandatory minimum, and any statutorily required consecutive sentence.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Importantly, although the Ashcroft and Comey memoranda limit an individual line prosecutor's ability to decline \"readily provable\" charges in their entirety, no such restriction is placed upon the U.S. Attorneys, who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy. In addition, the policy applies to \"readily provable\" charges, thus inherently allowing a prosecutor a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range. Those Guidelines were the product of the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–21, 117 Stat. 650, was directed at preventing child abuse. It included a variety of provisions designed to improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against children. Among other things, the PROTECT Act provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses, such as those involving multiple occasions of prohibited sexual conduct or those involving material with depictions of violence or with specified numbers of images.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "195 The Ashcroft Memo was issued before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence within the applicable Federal Sentencing Guidelines range.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "126",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021326",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "James Comey"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Sentencing Commission",
      "Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "04/16/21",
      "January 28, 2005",
      "1984",
      "2003",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 77",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 204-3",
      "Pub. L. 108–21",
      "117 Stat. 650",
      "543 U.S. 220",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021326"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing or legal brief. It includes references to specific court cases and legal memoranda. The text is dense and technical, suggesting that it is intended for an audience with a strong background in law."
}