mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00022093.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "31",
    "document_number": "35",
    "date": "04/24/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 31 of 34\nintent\"); Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (same). \"[T]he showing necessary to obtain discovery should itself be a significant barrier to the litigation of insubstantial claims.\" Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464. \"Mere assertions and generalized proffers on information and belief are insufficient\" to meet this burden. Fares, 978 F.2d at 59; see, e.g., Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470 (affidavits \"recount[ing] hearsay and report[ing] personal conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence\" are not sufficient to justify discovery); Berrios, 501 F.2d at 1211 (affidavit from defendant and attorney that they \"believe[d]\" there was improper motive and that \"hundreds\" of similarly situated individuals went unprosecuted was insufficient); Alameh, 341 F.3d at 174 (defendant's statistical analysis was insufficient to merit discovery on selective prosecution claim).\n2. Discussion\nThomas is not entitled to discovery that would relate to a selective procession or \"discriminatory application\" claim. He has not carried his burden through a showing of any evidence that his prosecution for the charges in the Indictment is discriminatory.\nAs to the first required prong (discriminatory effect), Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that \"others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against [him].\" Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (internal quotation marks omitted). \"A similarly situated offender is one outside the protected class who has committed roughly the same crime under roughly the same circumstances but against whom the law has not been enforced.\" United States v. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2008). Thomas alleges that there was an \"almost identical incident in 2005 or 2006 wherein officers failed to conduct institutional counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide,\" and one of the four officers involved was given a suspension. (Mot. 6). But Thomas is not charged with failing to conduct counts, he is charged with making false statements about those counts. Even assuming\n26\nDOJ-OGR-00022093",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 35 Filed 04/24/20 Page 31 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "intent\"); Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (same). \"[T]he showing necessary to obtain discovery should itself be a significant barrier to the litigation of insubstantial claims.\" Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464. \"Mere assertions and generalized proffers on information and belief are insufficient\" to meet this burden. Fares, 978 F.2d at 59; see, e.g., Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470 (affidavits \"recount[ing] hearsay and report[ing] personal conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence\" are not sufficient to justify discovery); Berrios, 501 F.2d at 1211 (affidavit from defendant and attorney that they \"believe[d]\" there was improper motive and that \"hundreds\" of similarly situated individuals went unprosecuted was insufficient); Alameh, 341 F.3d at 174 (defendant's statistical analysis was insufficient to merit discovery on selective prosecution claim).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Discussion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thomas is not entitled to discovery that would relate to a selective procession or \"discriminatory application\" claim. He has not carried his burden through a showing of any evidence that his prosecution for the charges in the Indictment is discriminatory.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As to the first required prong (discriminatory effect), Thomas has failed to put forth any evidence that \"others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against [him].\" Fares, 978 F.2d at 59 (internal quotation marks omitted). \"A similarly situated offender is one outside the protected class who has committed roughly the same crime under roughly the same circumstances but against whom the law has not been enforced.\" United States v. Lewis, 517 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2008). Thomas alleges that there was an \"almost identical incident in 2005 or 2006 wherein officers failed to conduct institutional counts or rounds and an inmate committed suicide,\" and one of the four officers involved was given a suspension. (Mot. 6). But Thomas is not charged with failing to conduct counts, he is charged with making false statements about those counts. Even assuming",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00022093",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Thomas",
      "Fares",
      "Armstrong",
      "Berrios",
      "Alameh",
      "Lewis"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S.",
      "1st Cir."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/24/20",
      "2005",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00830-AT",
      "Document 35",
      "DOJ-OGR-00022093"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten annotations or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}