mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002574.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "142",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 38\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nPage\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 1\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 7\nA. The Structure of the NPA ....................................................................................................................... 8\nB. The Negotiation of the NPA ................................................................................................................. 11\nARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 12\nI. The Indictment Should Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA. ................................................................ 14\nA. Ms. Maxwell Has Standing to Enforce the NPA. ................................................................................... 15\nB. The NPA's Prohibition on Prosecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. ............ 18\n1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District. ............................................................................... 18\n2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. ............................................................................. 19\na. There is an \"affirmative appearance\" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outside the SDFL. ...... 20\nb. The Second Circuit's subsequent application of Annabi supports Ms. Maxwell's position. ....................... 22\nc. To the extent that Annabi conflicts with Eleventh Circuit law, Eleventh Circuit law applies and would require enforcement of the NPA here. ............................................................................................................................... 23\nC. The NPA's Prohibition on the Prosecution of Potential Co-conspirators Is Not Limited to Prosecution for Conduct Between 2001 and 2007 or for Particular Statutory Offenses. ............................................................................... 26\nII. In the Alternative, the Court Should Permit Discovery and Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent. ............................................................................................................................... 28\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 32\ni\nDOJ-OGR-00002574",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 1\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 7\nA. The Structure of the NPA ....................................................................................................................... 8\nB. The Negotiation of the NPA ................................................................................................................. 11\nARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 12\nI. The Indictment Should Be Dismissed for Breach of the NPA. ................................................................ 14\nA. Ms. Maxwell Has Standing to Enforce the NPA. ................................................................................... 15\nB. The NPA's Prohibition on Prosecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. ............ 18\n1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District. ............................................................................... 18\n2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. ............................................................................. 19\na. There is an \"affirmative appearance\" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outside the SDFL. ...... 20\nb. The Second Circuit's subsequent application of Annabi supports Ms. Maxwell's position. ....................... 22\nc. To the extent that Annabi conflicts with Eleventh Circuit law, Eleventh Circuit law applies and would require enforcement of the NPA here. ............................................................................................................................... 23\nC. The NPA's Prohibition on the Prosecution of Potential Co-conspirators Is Not Limited to Prosecution for Conduct Between 2001 and 2007 or for Particular Statutory Offenses. ............................................................................... 26\nII. In the Alternative, the Court Should Permit Discovery and Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent. ............................................................................................................................... 28\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 32",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002574",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "SDFL"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "2001",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "142",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002574"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The table of contents suggests that the document discusses the structure and negotiation of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its implications for the case."
}