EFTA00230494.pdf

Memorandum Subject Daft Jane Does Nos. 1 and 2.'. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D.Fla.) April 26, 2011 To From Assistant Counsel 99 N.E. 4th Street Office of Professional Responsibility Miami, Florida 33132 U.S. Department of Justice VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Attached please fmd a CD-ROM containing the victims' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (unredacted), and a complete set of exhibits, including the e-mails in Exhibit A. The e-mails in Exhibit A are between Epstein's defense attorney and AUSA Villafaba. They were produced in civil litigation between Epstein and some of his victims. Epstein's attorneys redacted their side of the e-mail transmission. I will attempt to obtain a complete set, which includes the transmission from Epstein's attorneys. If you have any questions, please call me Thank you. Enclosure 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000670 EFTA00230494 Case 9:08-cv-8073§-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 1 of 42 RT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLO RID A on Case No. 08-80736-CW-Marra/Johns JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I. UNITED STATES LATIONS OF DOE #1 AND JAN E DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIO JAN E HEARING ON CRI ME VIC TIM S' RIG HTS ACT AND REQUEST FOR A THE APPROPRIATE REMEDIES ms"), by and Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victi COME NOW Jane Doe HI and Jane victims' rights under for a finding from this Court that the through undersigned counsel, to move ted by the U.S. , 18 U.S.C. § 3771, have been viola the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) violations. ing on the appropriate remedies for these Attorney's Office, and to request a hear ailed to facts to the Government, which they have The victims have proffered a series of 's Office has e facts,' it is clear that the U.S. Attorney contest. Proceeding on the basis of thes confer with CVRA rights, including their right to repeatedly violated the victims' protected tion agreement the and specifically about a non-prosecu prosecutors generally about the case See 18 U.S.C. well as their right to fair treatment. Office signed with the defendant, as 3771(8)(5) & (8). U.S. Attorney's ple, that in September 2007, the It is now beyond dispute, for exam tion agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his Office formally signed a non-prosecu accepted by the filing a motion to have their facts I The victims are contemporaneously Court 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000671 EFTA00230495  1 ,••• •Sle7 - - Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 2 of 42 committed against the victims (as well as prosecution for numerous federal sex offenses he the victims about this non-prosecution against many other minor girls). Rather than confer with Jeffrey Epstein agreed to a "confidentiality" agreement, however, the U.S. Attorney's Office and — including the victims. For the next provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone ey's Office assiduously concealed from nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S, Attorn agreement indeed, the Office went so the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution ation letter to the victims informing them • far as to send (in January 2008) a false victim notific the U.S. Attorney's Office had already that the "case is currently under investigation." In fact, non-prosecution agreement. Again on May resolved the case three months earlier by signing the r victim notification letter to a recognized 30, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent yet anothe investigation" and that it "can be a lengthy victim informing her that the "case is currently under we conduct a thorough investigation." process and we request your continued patience while in's state guilty plea that was part of the Then in June 2008, on the eve of consummating Epste asked legal counsel for the victims to non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office l charges should be filed — not send a letter expressing the victims' views on why federa a pointless exercise because the non- disclosing to the victims' legal counsel that this was months earlier. prosecution agreement had already been signed some nine violations of Jane Doe #1 and These actions and many more like them constitute clear Act, including the right to confer with Jane Doe #2's rights under the Crime Victims Rights argument that the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecutors and the right to fair treament. The only indictment was formally filed in this case. advances is that the CVRA does not apply because no 's plain language, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § But this position is inconsistent with both the CVRA 2 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000672 EFTA00230496  1 , . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 42 "detection" and "investigation" of 3771(e)(I) (Justice Department agencies involved in the case law, see, e.g.iih ; Dean, 5 F.3d federal crimes covered by CVRA), and with persuasive d before pre-indictrnifirrs ea reached). 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008) (victims should have been notifie aware of its obligations to notify the Moreover, the U.S. Attorney's Office itself was fully other evidence make perfectly clear. The victims in this case, as e-mails from the Office and the non-prosecution agreement ftom the only reason that the Office concealed the existence of rather to avoid a firestorm of public victims was not to comply with some legal restriction, but eart plea deal with a politically-connected controversy that would have erupted if the sweeth billionaire had been revealed. Office — in coordination with The Court should accordingly find that the U.S. Attorney's g schedule and hearing on the proper Jeffrey Epstein — has violated the Act and set a briefin remedy for those violations. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ent of undisputed material facts. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 offer the following statem s request an evidentiary hearing to prove If the Government disputes any of these facts, the victim each and every one of them:2 n (a billionaire with significant 1. Between about 2001 and 2007, defendant Jeffrey Epstei girls at his mansion in West Palm political connections) sexually abused more than 30 minor reasons the victims explain in their 2 The Court should accept all these facts as true for Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted contemporaneously-filed Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's The Facts. The Court should also direct Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of ses supporting these facts, for reasons the the Government to produce all evidence that it posses Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Motion for victims explain in their contemporaneously-filed Jane old Relevant Evidence. Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withh 3 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000673 EFTA00230497  I r• ->":::::;;,:fir - rff-PA5-' Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 4 of 42 #1 and Jane girls he sexually abused were Jane Doe Beach, Florida, and elsewhere. Among the (but lewd, lasci vious, and sexual acts on them, including Doe #2. Epstein performed repeated al toys on their sexual organs, using vibrators or sexu not limited to) masturbation, touching of ein used a digitally penetrating them. Because Epst them, coercing them into sexual acts, and in abuse ingly traveled in interstate commerce to engage means of interstate cotnmerce and know federal law, othe r victims), he committed violations of of Jane Doc NI and Jane Doe #2 (and the Epstein, Case § 2422. See. e.g., Complaint, E.W.i. including repeated violations of 18 U.S.C. Beach County, Florida); Complaint, No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB (l5th Cir. Palm h Count, 0280 51 =ma AB (15th Cir. Palm Beac L.M.I. Epstein, Case No 50 2008 CA Florida). ose of rage girl on his private jet for the purp 2. Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one unde be sexually ing her to have sex with him and othe rs. Epstein forced this underage girl to forc professional oited by his adul t male peer s, inclu ding royalty, politicians, businessmen, and expl 9:09-CV-80656- pers onal acqu ainta nces . Com plain t, Jane Doe No. 102 I. Epstein, No. and KAM (S.D. Fla. May 1, 2009). au of Beach Police Department, the Federal Bure 3. In 2006, at the request of the Palm his personal into allegations that Jeffrey Epstein and Investigation opened an investigation the ages of commerce to induce young girls between assistants had used facilities of interstate was presented titution, among other offenses. The case thirteen and seventeen to engage in pros accepted the for the Southern District of Florida, which to the United States Attorney's Office investigating County State Attorney's Office was also case for investigation. The Palm Beach 4 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000674 EFTA00230498  rannrenr— Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 5 of 42 it "A" to this filing (hereinafter the case. See generally U.S. Attorney's Correspondence, Exhib by Bates page number stamp). cited as "U.S. Attorney's Correspondence" and referenced and Jane Doe #2 were victims of 4. The FBI soon determined that both Jane Doe #1 ing when they were approximately sexual assaults by Epstein while they were minors beginn of age respectively. Jane Doe #1, for fourteen years of age and approximately thirteen years (and the abuse of Jane Doe #2) to the example, provided detailed information about her abuse FBI on August 7,2007. Exhibit "B." igation established that Epstein 5. More generally, the FBI through diligent invest yees and underlings to repeatedly find operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid emplo rt as part of the enterprise with others, and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in conce obtain minor girls not only for his own including Ghislane Maxwell and Jean Luc Brunel, to of others. The FBI determined that sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification crimes against dozens of minor girls Epstein had committed dozens and dozens of federal sex the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal between 2001 and 2007. They presented information to nce at 47-55. prosecution, See Exhibit "B"; U.S. Attorney's Corresponde Jane Doe #1 a standard CVRA 6. On about June 7, 2007, FBI agents hand-delivered to that the Justice Department would makes its victim notification letter. The notification promised ing "(IN, reasonable right to confer with the "best efforts" to protect Jane Doe #1's rights, includ ably heard at any public proceeding attorney for the United States in the case" and "to be reason in the district court involving . . . plea ." The notification further explained that "(a)t this ation meant that the FBI had identified Jane time, your case is under investigation." That notific ne protected by the CVRA. Jane Doe #1 Doe #1 as a victim of a federal offense and as someo 5 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000675 EFTA00230499 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doeurneet 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 6 of 42 Department would protect these relied on these representations and believed that the Justice case. See Exhibit "C." rights and keep her informed about the progress of her a standard CVRA victim notification 7. On about August 11, 2007, Jane Doe #2 received ment would makes its "best efforts" to letter. The notification promised that the Justice Depart able right to confer with the attorney for the protect Jane Doe #2's rights, including "Mlle reason at any public proceeding in the district United States in the case" and "to be reasonably heard ned that "felt this time, your case is court involving .. . plea ... ." The notification further explai FBI had identified Jane Doe #2 as a victim under investigation." That notification meant that the the CVRA. Jane Doe #2 relied on these of a federal offense and as someone protected by would protect these rights and keep her representations and believed that the Justice Department informed about the progress of her case. See Exhibit "D." Assistant U.S. Attorney had several 8. Early in the investigation, the FBI agents and an by counsel that was paid for by the meetings with Jane Doe #1. Jane Doe #2 was represented made through that attorney. criminal target Epstein and, accordingly, all contact was took place between Jeffrey Epstein, 9. In and around September 2007, plea discussions al defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz), and represented by numerous attorneys (including lead crimin t of Florida, represented by Assistant U.S. the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern Distric sions generally began from the premise Attorney A. Marie Villafana and others. The plea discus felony offense surrounding his sexual that Epstein would plead guilty to at least one federal numerous defense attorneys progressively assaults of more than 30 minor girls. From there, the ultimately plead to only two state court negotiated more favorable terms so that Epstein would 6 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000676 EFTA00230500 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 42 in felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are reflected e-mails between Leflcowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 10. The evidence supporting these dozen charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking consistent testimony of several minor girls, all made automatically admissible in a federal criminal sexual assault prosecution by operation of Fed. R. Evid. 414. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 4. interested in 12. The correspondence also shows that the U.S. Attorney's Office was learning finding a place to conclude a plea bargain that would effectively keep the victims from what was happening through the press. The Office wrote in an e-mail to defense counsel: am The 7 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000677 EFTA00230501 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 8 of 42 Jane Doe #1 and U.S. Attorney's Office was aware that most of the victims of Epstein, including Office was Jane Doe 42, resided well outside the Miami area in the West Palm Beach area. The significantly less also aware that the chances of press coverage of a case filed in Miami would be likely to reach th&Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. Jay 13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to stated that Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail the Government and Epstein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 153 (emphases added). 14. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Leflcowitz statingSeallISS SS U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 156. 15. On about September 26, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Lefkowitz in which she stated• B 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000678 EFTA00230502 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 9 of 42 RIM Apparently the ' greed to between the Government and Epstein's defense counsel was that no mention would be made of the non-prosecution agreement between the the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein, as no subsequent mention was made to the victims of non-prosecution agreement and a confidentiality provision was made part of that agreement (as discussed below). U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 359. 16. On about September 25, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Jeflcowitt in which it suggested that the victims should be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 157. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to push a different attorney in part because it would reduce publicity, explaining that Id. 17. On about September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office formally reached an agreement whereby the United States would defer federal prosecution in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office accordingly entered into a "Non-Prosecution Agreement" (NPA) reflecting their agreement. Most significantly, the NPA gave Epstein a promise that he would not be prosecuted for a series of federal felony allowed offenses involving his sexual abuse of more than 30 minor girls. The NPA instead Epstein to plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and 9 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000679 EFTA00230503  1 ,:.7Y.Cel , re -37.7:7 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 10 of 42 set up a procedure whereby a victim of procurement of minors for prostitution. The NPA also proceed with a civil claim against Epstein, Epstein's sexual abuse could obtain an attorney to from Epstein. To obtain an attorney provided that the victim agreed to limit damages sought to proceed exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § paid for by Epstein, the victim would have to agree ed damages of $150,000 against Epstein — an 2255 (i.e., under a law that provided presum The agreement was signed by Epstein amount that Epstein argued later was limited to $50,000). Office, on about September 24, 2007. Non- and his legal counsel, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Prosecution Agreement, Exhibit "E." agreed to, a provision in the non- IS. Epstein insisted on, and the U.S. Attorney's Office particular, the agreement stated: "The prosecution agreement that made the agreement secret. In part of any public record. If the United parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made t or any compulsory process commanding States receives a Freedom of Information Act reques Epstein before making the disclosure." the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to U.S. Attorney's Office put itself in a By entering into such a confidentiality agreement, the ing Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about position that conferring with the crime victims (includ of the agreement — specifically the the non-prosecution agreement would violate terms the victims about the agreement would confidentiality provision. Indeed, even notifying September 24, 2007 through at least presumably have violated the provision. Accordingly, from June 2008 — a period of more than nine months the U.S Attorney's Office did not notify any of agreement. Epstein was well aware of this the victims of the existence of the non-prosecution this failure to notify the victims. Id.; U.S. failure to notify the victims and, indeed, arranged for 10 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000680 EFTA00230504  ---- %.""•"..9 Case 9:O8-cv-8O736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 11 of 42 Attorney's Correspondence at 270; Transcript of Hearing in this case on July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29 (hereinafter cited as wfr, July 11, 2008"). 19. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that the U.S. Attorney's Office — pushed by Epstein — wanted the non-prosecution agreement kept from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted from allowing a politically-connected billionaire who had sexually abused more than 30 minor girls to escape from federal prosecution with only a county court jail sentence. Another reasonable inference is that the Office wanted the agreement concealed at this time because of the possibility that the victims could have objected to the agreement in court and perhaps convinced the judge reviewing the agreement not to accept it. 20. The Non-Prosecution Agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein was subsequently modified by an October 2007 Addendum and a December 19, 2007, letter from the U.S. Attorney to Attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez. The US. Attorney's Office did not confer with any of the victims about these modifiCations of the agreement (or even notify them of the existence of these modifications) through at least June 2008 — a period of more than six months. See Supplemental Declaration of A. Marie Villafafla (doe. #35, at 1); U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 234-37; Tr. July 11, 2008, 18-19, 22-23, 28- 29.3 21. In October 2007, shortly after the initial plea agreement was signed, FBI agents contacted Jane Doe 01. On October 26, 2007, Special Agents B. Nesbitt Kuyrkendall and Jason Richards met in person with Jane Doe #1. The Special Agents explained that Epstein would 3 On about August 14, 2008, Epstein's defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney's Office that they did not consider the December 19, 2007, letter to be operative. 11 O8-8O736-CV-MARRA 000681 EFTA00230505 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Par 12 of 42 as a sex plead guilty to state charges involving another victim, he would be required to register offender for life, and he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #1. During this meeting, the Special Agents did not explain that an agreement had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstein for federal charges against Jane Doe #1. The agents could not have revealed this part of the non-prosecution agreement without violating the terms of the non-prosecution agreement. Whether the agents themselves had been informed of the existence of the non-prosecution agreement by the U.S. Attorney's Office is not certain. Because the plea agreement had already been reached with Epstein, the agents made no attempt to secure Jane Doe #1's view on the proposed resolution of the case. Exhibit "E," Tr. July 11, 2008 at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23. 22. Jane Doe #1's (quite reasonable) understanding of the Special Agent's explanation was that only the State part of the Epstein investigation had been resolved, and that the federal investigation would continue, possibly leading to a federal prosecution. Jane Doe #1 also understood her own case was move forward towards possible prosecution. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 4-6, 18-19, 22-23, 28-29. 23. On about November 27, 2007, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Sloman sent an e-mail to Office Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein. The e-mail stated that the U.S. Attorney's had an obligation to notify the victims 12 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000682 EFTA00230506  7.7 . . ...•" Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 13 of 42 U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 255 (emphasis rearranged). 24. On about November 29, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a draft of a crime victim notification letter to Jay Lefkowirz, defense counsel for Jeffrey Epstein. The notification letter would have explained: The :etter wo..ild have gone un to explain that Epstein would The letter would not have explained that, as part of the agreement with Epstein, the Justice Department had previously agreed not to prosecute Epstein for any of the numerous federal offenses that had been committed. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 256-59. 25. Because of concerns from Epstein's attorneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office never sent the proposed victim notification letter discussed in the previous paragraph to the victims. Instead, a misleading letter stating that the case was "currently under investigation" (described below) was sent in January 2008 and May 2008. At no time before reaching the non-prosecution agreement did the Justice Department notify any victims, including for example Jane Doe NI, about the non-prosecution agreement. The victims were therefore prevented from exercising their CVRA right to confer with prosecutors about the case and about the agreement. Epstein 13 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000683 EFTA00230507  f'"'",%7 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 14 of 42 was aware of these violations of the CVRA and, indeed, pressured the U.S. Attorney's Office to commit those violations. Tr. July 11, 2008, at 9. 26. On about December 6, 2007, Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, noting the U.S. Attorney's Office's legal obligations to keep victims informed of th The letter stated: U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 191-92 (emphasis added). 27. Despite this recognition of its obligation to keep victims about the non-prosecution agreement, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not follow through and inform the victims of the non-prosecution agreement. To the contrary, as discussed below, it continued to tell the victims that the case was "under investigation." Tr. July I I, 2008, at 4.5, 18-19, 22-29. 28. On December 13, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent a letter to Jay Lefkowitz, defense counsel for Epstein, rebutting allegations that had apparently been made aguinst the 14 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000684 EFTA00230508 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 15 of 42 AUSA handling the cave by the Epstein defense team. (The Justice Department concluded the allegations were meritless.) The letter stated that a federal indictment against Epstein a t The letter also recounted that U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 269. 29. The December 13, 2007, letter also reveals that the Justice Department stopped making victim notifications because of U.S. Attorney's Conespondence at 270 (emphasis added). It was a deviation from the Justice Department's standard practice to negotiate with defense counsel about the extent of crime victim notifications. 30. The December 13, 2007, letter also demonstrates that the Justice Department was well aware of who the victims of Epstein's sexual offenses were. The Justice Department was prepared to make notifications to the victims, but suspended those notifications only because objections from defense counsel. Id 31. The December 13, 2007, letter reveals it would have been possible to confer with the victims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The U.S. Attorney's Office was fully able to 15 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000685 EFTA00230509 . Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21'2011 Page 16 of 42 confer with Epstein's counsel about the parameters of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but refused to confer with Epstein's victims about the Agreement. Id 32. Following the signing of the Agreement and the modifications thereto, Epetein's performance was delayed while he sought higher level review within the Department oflustice. See U.S. Attorney's Correspondence passim. A reasonable inference from the evidence is that Epstein used his significant political and social connections to lobby the Justice Department to avoid significant federal prosecution. The Justice Department has in its possession internal documents (i.e., phone logs, ernails, etc.) that would reveal the event of those lobbying efforts. The Justice Department, however, has refused to make these materials available to the victims. 33. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "ftlids case is currently under• investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." Exhibits "F" & "G." The statement in the notification letter was misleading and, in fact, false. The case was not currently "under investigation." To the contrary, the federal cases involving Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 had been resolved by the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office discussed previously. Moreover, the FBI did not notify Jane Doe • #1 or Jane Doe #2 that a plea agreement had been reached previously, and that part of the agreement was a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern