mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021752.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "87",
    "date": "07/27/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page10 of 35\n\nSee U.S. v. Stolt-Nielsen, 524 F.Supp.2d 609, 613-14, 620-23, 628 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (dismissing indictment against Stolt-Nielsen's \"directors and/or officers,\" as they were \"intended third-party beneficiaries of the [Conditional Leniency] Agreement\" between the DOJ Antitrust Division and Stolt-Nielsen); U.S. v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1228-32 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing indictment against employee of air cargo provider, as he had \"third party beneficiary standing necessary to establish [his] immunity under the Plea Agreement\" between the Government and his employer); U.S. v. El-Sadig, 133 F.Supp.2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) (\"[E]ven if the non-prosecution agreement was never directly communicated to Defendant El-Sadig, he can enforce the non-prosecution agreement as a third party beneficiary\"); U.S. v. CFW Const. Co., Inc., 583 F.Supp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984) (\"[A]n intended third party beneficiary of a contract may enforce its provisions....Thus, if the Government, in negotiating the aforementioned plea agreements, 'promised' that there would be no prosecution against CFW...the promise must be enforced.\").\n\nThis rule makes sense. \"Plea agreements are interpreted in accordance with contract law principles.\" U.S. v. Colon, 220 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing U.S. v. Altrom 180 F.3d 372, 275 (2d Cir. 1999)), and it is hornbook contract law that an intended third-party beneficiary may enforce a contract. See Subaru Distribs. Corp. v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 425 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2005); Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005). There is no reason to treat plea or non-\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00021752",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page10 of 35",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "See U.S. v. Stolt-Nielsen, 524 F.Supp.2d 609, 613-14, 620-23, 628 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (dismissing indictment against Stolt-Nielsen's \"directors and/or officers,\" as they were \"intended third-party beneficiaries of the [Conditional Leniency] Agreement\" between the DOJ Antitrust Division and Stolt-Nielsen); U.S. v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1228-32 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing indictment against employee of air cargo provider, as he had \"third party beneficiary standing necessary to establish [his] immunity under the Plea Agreement\" between the Government and his employer); U.S. v. El-Sadig, 133 F.Supp.2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) (\"[E]ven if the non-prosecution agreement was never directly communicated to Defendant El-Sadig, he can enforce the non-prosecution agreement as a third party beneficiary\"); U.S. v. CFW Const. Co., Inc., 583 F.Supp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984) (\"[A]n intended third party beneficiary of a contract may enforce its provisions....Thus, if the Government, in negotiating the aforementioned plea agreements, 'promised' that there would be no prosecution against CFW...the promise must be enforced.\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This rule makes sense. \"Plea agreements are interpreted in accordance with contract law principles.\" U.S. v. Colon, 220 F.3d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing U.S. v. Altrom 180 F.3d 372, 275 (2d Cir. 1999)), and it is hornbook contract law that an intended third-party beneficiary may enforce a contract. See Subaru Distribs. Corp. v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 425 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2005); Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005). There is no reason to treat plea or non-",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021752",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "El-Sadig"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ Antitrust Division",
      "Stolt-Nielsen",
      "Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc.",
      "CFW Const. Co., Inc.",
      "Subaru Distribs. Corp.",
      "Subaru of Am., Inc.",
      "Town of Ponce Inlet"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Pa.",
      "S.D. Fla.",
      "N.D. Ohio",
      "D.S.C."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/27/2023",
      "2007",
      "2012",
      "2001",
      "1984",
      "1999",
      "2002",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 87",
      "3548202",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021752"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing or legal brief discussing plea agreements and third-party beneficiaries. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger document, as indicated by the 'Page10 of 35' notation at the top."
}