MEMY-1805 marker2 court-maxwell-v-us (salt 4090): 41/41

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822476/EFTA02822476.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+App. No:
+
+Mnh the \*uprentr Court of Hy antteb \*tatr5
+
+GI IIS LAINE MAXWELL,
+
+Petitioner,
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+
+Respondent.
+
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+Undersigned counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares that on the 15th day of January 2025, a copy of the Petitioner's Application for Extension of Time to File Certiorari Petition was served by U.S. mail upon the upon the Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530-0001.
+
+/s/ David Oscar Markus
+
+David Oscar Markus
+
+Counsel for Petitioner
+
+40 N.W. Third Street
+
+Penthouse One
+
+Miami, Florida 33128
+
+Tel. No. (305) 379-6667
+
+Facsimile No. (305) 379-6668
+
+dmarkus@markuslaw.com
+
+Miami, Florida January 15, 2025

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822476/EFTA02822476.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822476.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 1,
+  "chars": 760,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 1.04,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            49
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            25
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            19
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822476"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822477/EFTA02822477.md

@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
+22-1426-cr
+
+United States v. Maxwell
+
+# 3.fn the Ilniteb ikateO Court of Ropeal5 for tbe iiperonb (Circuit
+
+AUGUST TERM 2023
+
+No. 22-1426-cr
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
+
+v.
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, also known as Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant-Appellant.
+
+On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
+
+> ARGUED: MARCH 12, 2024 DECIDED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
+
+Before: CABRANES, WESLEY, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges.
+
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). She was principally sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release.
+
+On appeal, the questions presented are whether (1) Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida barred Maxwell's prosecution by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; (2) a second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021, complied with the statute of limitations; (3) the District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) the District Court's response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the second superseding indictment; and (5) Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
+
+Identifying no errors in the District Court's conduct of this complex case, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
+
+ANDREW ROHRBACH, Assistant United States Attorney (Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, Won S. Shin, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Damian United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.
+
+DIANA FABI SAMSON (Arthur L. Aidala, John M. Leventhal, on the brief), Aidala Bertuna & Kamins PC, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
+
+JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:
+
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). The District Court imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release
+
+of three years, three years, and five years, respectively. The District Court also imposed a fine of \$250,000 on each count for a total of \$750,000.
+
+On appeal, the questions presented are (1) whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") barred Maxwell's prosecution by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY"); (2) whether Maxwell's second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the "Indictment") complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District Court's response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and (5) whether Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
+
+We hold that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold that Maxwell's Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as 18 U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for offenses committed before the date of the statute's enactment. We further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror's erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that the District Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the
+
+Indictment. Lastly, we hold that Maxwell's sentence is procedurally reasonable.
+
+Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
+
+### I. BACKGROUND 1
+
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell coordinated, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of women and underage girls. Starting in 1994, Maxwell groomed numerous young women to engage in sexual activity with Epstein by building friendships with these young women, gradually normalizing discussions of sexual topics and sexual abuse. Until about 2004, this pattern of sexual abuse continued as Maxwell provided Epstein access to underage girls in various locations in the United States.
+
+### 1. Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement
+
+In September 2007, following state and federal investigations into allegations of Epstein's unlawful sexual activity, Epstein entered into an NPA with USAO-SDFL. In the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida
+
+<sup>1</sup> Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the evidence presented at trial and described in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Litzvok, 678 F.3d 208, 210-11 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Because this is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial, the I I facts are drawn from the trial evidence and described in the light most favorable to the Government.").
+
+Statutes § 796.07,2 and to one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.03? He agreed to receive a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment on the two charges. In consideration of Epstein's agreement, the NPA states that "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Lesley Groff, or "4
+
+### 2. Maxwell's Indictment and Trial-Related Proceedings
+
+The Indictment filed against Maxwell contained eight counts, six of which proceeded to trial .5 Prior to the commencement of trial,
+
+(2) It is unlawful:
+
+(f) To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
+
+<sup>2</sup> Florida Statutes § 796.07 provides in relevant part:
+
+<sup>3</sup> Florida Statutes § 796.03, which has since been repealed, provided in relevant part: "A person who procures for prostitution, or causes to be prostituted, any person who is under the age of 18 years commits a felony of the second degree."
+
+<sup>4</sup> A-178.
+
+<sup>5</sup>Count One charged Maxwell with conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two charged Maxwell with enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charged Maxwell with conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charged Maxwell with transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a) and 2. Count Five charged Maxwell with sex trafficking conspiracy, in
+
+prospective jurors completed a lengthy questionnaire, with several questions raising issues relevant to the trial. Based on the completed questionnaires, the parties selected prospective jurors to proceed to inperson voir dire. The District Court ultimately empaneled a jury.
+
+During the four-and-a-half-week jury trial, the Government presented evidence of the repeated sexual abuse of six girls. At the conclusion of trial, on December 29, 2021, the jury found Maxwell guilty on all but one count.6
+
+Following the verdict, Juror 50 gave press interviews during which he stated that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse.? In his answers to the written jury questionnaire, however, Juror 50 answered "no" to three questions asking whether he or a friend or family member had ever been the victim of a crime; whether he or a friend or family member had ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault; and whether he or a friend or family member had ever been accused of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual
+
+violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Six charged Maxwell with sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a), (b)(2), and 2. Counts Seven and Eight charged Maxwell with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The perjury charges were severed from the remaining charges and ultimately dismissed at sentencing.
+
+<sup>6</sup> The jury found Maxwell guilty on Counts One, Three, Four, Five, and Six. Maxwell was acquitted on Count Two.
+
+<sup>7</sup>Consistent with a juror anonymity order entered for trial, the parties and the District Court referred to the jurors by pseudonym.
+
+assault.8Upon learning of the interviews, the Government filed a letter on January 5, 2022, requesting a hearing; Maxwell then moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. On March 8, 2022, the District Court held a hearing and Juror 50 testified—under grant of immunity—that his answers to three questions related to sexual abuse in the jury questionnaire were not accurate but that the answers were an inadvertent mistake and that his experiences did not affect his ability to be fair and impartial. Finding Juror 50's testimony to be credible, the District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial in a written order.
+
+Maxwell was subsequently sentenced to a term of 240 months' imprisonment to be followed by five years' supervised release, and the
+
+Question 2 asked "thjave you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?" Question 48 asked "[h]ave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)" Finally, Question 49 asked
+
+<sup>[</sup>h]ave you or a friend or family member ever been accused of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes both formal accusations in a court of law or informal accusations in a social or work setting of actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.
+
+See A-299, A-310.
+
+District Court imposed a \$750,000 fine and a \$300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed.
+
+### II. DISCUSSION
+
+## 1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY
+
+Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell's arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.9
+
+In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which "the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.") We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY.
+
+It is well established in our Circuit that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement
+
+<sup>9</sup> See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018).
+
+<sup>10</sup> A-178.
+
+contemplates a broader restriction."11 And while Maxwell contends that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.12 Applying Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where the NPA is not silent, the agreement's scope is expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district:
+
+After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any
+
+<sup>11</sup> United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). We recognize that circuits have been split on this issue for decades. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986); United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 550 (3d Cir. 2002).
+
+<sup>12</sup> See, e.g., United States v. Prism, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (applying Annabi to plea agreement entered into in the District of New Jersey); United States v. 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (same, to agreement entered into in the District of New Mexico). Nor does Annabi, as Maxwell contends, apply only where subsequent charges are "sufficiently distinct" from charges covered by an earlier agreement. In Annabi, this Court rejected an interpretation of a prior plea agreement that rested on the Double Jeopardy Clause, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause applied, the subsequent charges were "sufficiently distinct" and therefore fell outside the Clause's protections. Annabi, 771 Ficl at 672. This Court did not, however, conclude that the rule of construction it announced depended on the similarities between earlier and subsequent charges.
+
+offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.13
+
+The only language in the NPA that speaks to the agreement's scope is limiting language.
+
+The negotiation history of the NPA, just as the text, fails to show that the agreement was intended to bind other districts. Under our Court's precedent, the negotiation history of an NPA can support an inference that an NPA "affirmatively" binds other districts.14 Yet, the actions of USAO-SDFL do not indicate that the NPA was intended to bind other districts.
+
+The United States Attorney's Manual that was operable during the negotiations of the NPA required that:
+
+No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of
+
+THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
+
+<sup>1</sup>S A-175 (emphasis added). The agreement's scope is also limited in an additional section:
+
+Id. (emphasis added).
+
+<sup>1,</sup> See United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986).
+
+the United States Attomey(s) in each affected district and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.15
+
+Nothing before us indicates that USAO-SDNY had been notified or had approved of Epstein's NPA with USAO-SDFL and intended to be bound by it. And the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division stated in an interview with the Office of Professional Responsibility that she "played no role" in the NPA, either by reviewing or approving the agreement.
+
+The history of the Office of the United States Attorney is instructive as to the scope of their actions and duties. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the United States Attorney, along with the office of the Attorney General. More specifically, the Judiciary Act provided for the appointment, in each district, of a "person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned."16 The Judiciary Act thus emphasized that U.S. Attorneys would enforce the law of the United States but did not determine that the actions of one U.S. Attorney could bind other districts, let alone the entire nation. In fact, the phrase "in such district," repeated twice, implies that the scope of
+
+<sup>35</sup> United States Attorney's Manual § 9-27.641 (2007).
+
+<sup>16</sup> An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States, ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 (1789) (emphasis added).
+
+the actions and the duties of the U.S. Attorneys would be limited to their own districts, absent any express exceptions.
+
+Since 1789, while the number of federal districts has grown significantly, the duties of a U.S. Attorney and their scope remain largely unchanged. By statute, U.S. Attorneys, "within [their] district, shall (1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States; (2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned."7 Again, the scope of the duties of a U.S. Attorney is cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.18
+
+In short, Annabi controls the result here. Nothing in the text of the NPA or its negotiation history suggests that the NPA precluded USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell for the charges in the
+
+The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding ... which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.
+
+<sup>17</sup> 28 U.S.C. § 547.
+
+<sup>18</sup>This does not suggest that there are no instances in which a U.S. Attorney's powers do not extend beyond their districts. For instance, under 28 U.S.C. § 515 a U.S. Attorney can represent the Government or participate in proceedings in other districts, but only when specifically directed by the Attorney General:
+
+Indictment. The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell's motion without an evidentiary hearing.
+
+### 2. The Indictment Is Timely
+
+Maxwell argues that Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely because they do not fall within the scope of offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and thereby do not fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283.19 Separately, Maxwell contends that the Government cannot apply the 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of limitations to those offenses that were committed before the enactment into law of the provision. On both points, we disagree and hold that the District Court correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss the charges as untimely. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment and the application of a statute of limitations.2°
+
+First, Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors. The District Court properly applied Weingarten v. United States.21 In Weingarten, we explained that Congress intended courts to apply § 3283 using a case-specific
+
+<sup>19</sup> 18 U.S.C. § 3283 provides: Ink) statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer."
+
+<sup>20</sup> United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 276, 278 (2d Cir. 2018).
+
+<sup>51</sup> <sup>865</sup>F.3d 48, 58-60 (2d Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 313- 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
+
+approach as opposed to a "categorical approach."22 We see no reason to depart from our reasoning in Weingarten. Accordingly, the question presented here is whether the charged offenses involved the sexual abuse of a minor for the purposes of § 3283 based on the facts of the case. Jane, one of the women who testified at trial, gave evidence that she had been sexually abused when transported across state lines as a minor. Counts Three and Four thus qualify as offenses, and § 3283 applies to those offenses.
+
+Second, Maxwell argues that Counts Three, Four, and Six of the Indictment are barred by the statute of limitations because the extended statute of limitations provided by the 2003 amendment to § 3283 does not apply to pre-enactment conduct. In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, the Supreme Court held that a court, in deciding whether a statute applies retroactively, must first "determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach."23 If Congress has done so, "the inquiry ends, and the court enforces the
+
+n The "categorical approach" is a method of statutory interpretation that requires courts to look "only to the statutory definitions of the prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions" for sentencing and immigration purposes. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990). We properly reasoned in Weingarten that § 3283 met none of the conditions listed by Taylor that might require application of the categorical approach. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 58-60. First, "Nile language of § 328311 . .. reaches beyond the offense and its legal elements to the conduct iinvolv[edr in the offense." Id. at 59-60. Second, legislative history suggests that Congress intended § 3283 to be applied broadly. Id. at 60. Third, a case-specific approach would not produce practical difficulties or potential unfairness. Id.
+
+<sup>75</sup> 511 US. 244, 280 (1994); see also Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54.55.
+
+statute as it is written."24 If the statute "is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity, a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects."25
+
+Here, the inquiry is straightforward. In 2003, Congress amended § 3283 to provide: "No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child."26 The text of § 3283—that no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of these offenses will apply—plainly requires that it prevent the application of any statute of limitations that would otherwise apply to past conduct.
+
+The statutory text makes clear that Congress intended to extend the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for pre-enactment conduct as the prior statute of limitations was inadequate. This is enough to conclude that the PROTECT Act's amendment to § 3283 applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.
+
+<sup>24</sup> In re Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280).
+
+<sup>25</sup> Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
+
+<sup>26</sup> PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 202, 117 Stat. 650, 660 (2003).
+
+### 3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial
+
+Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
+
+We review a District Court's denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. 27 We have been extremely reluctant to "haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences."29 While courts can "vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires," Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so "sparingly" and only in "the most extraordinary circumstances." <sup>29</sup> A district court "has
+
+<sup>27</sup> See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). "[WO are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance." United States v. S 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the term of art "abuse of discretion" includes errors of law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or "a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
+
+<sup>28</sup> United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983).
+
+<sup>&</sup>quot;a 246 F.3d at 134.
+
+broad discretion to decide Rule 33 motions based upon its evaluation of the proof produced" and is shown deference on appea1.30
+
+A Rule 33 motion based on a juror's alleged erroneous response during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.31 Under McDonough, a party seeking a new trial "must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."32
+
+The District Court applied the McDonough standard, found Juror 50's testimony credible, and determined that Juror 50's erroneous responses during voir dire were "not deliberately incorrect" and that "he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire."33 In fact, as the District Court noted, Maxwell did not challenge the inclusion of other jurors who disclosed past experience with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment. This is
+
+<sup>3°</sup> United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 364 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
+
+<sup>31</sup> 464 U.S. 548 (1984).
+
+<sup>32</sup> 1d. at 556.
+
+<sup>33</sup> A-340 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court reminds us that "[no invalidate the result of a ( j trial because of a juror's mistaken, though honest response to a question, is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give." McDonough, 464 US. at 555.
+
+enough; the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's motion for a new trial?'
+
+# 4. The District Court's Response to a Jury Note Did Not Result in a Constructive Amendment of, or Prejudicial Variance from, the Allegations in the Indictment
+
+During jury deliberations, the jury sent the following jury note regarding Count Four of the Indictment:
+
+> Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?35
+
+The District Court determined that it would not respond to the note directly because it was difficult to "parse factually and legally" and instead referred the jury to the second element of Count Four.36
+
+<sup>31</sup> Nor did the District Court err in questioning Juror 50 rather than allowing the parties to do so. In conducting a hearing on potential juror misconduct, "lurk leave it to the district court's discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the hearing in camera." United States v. lanniello, 866 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir. 1989). And while Maxwell contends that the District Court improperly limited questioning about Juror 50's role in deliberations, she both waived that argument below and fails to show here how any such questioning would not be foreclosed by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b).
+
+<sup>35</sup> A-238.
+
+<sup>%</sup> A-207-221. The District Court's instruction on the second element of Count Four required the jury to find that "Maxwell knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with the
+
+Maxwell subsequently filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the District Court's response, claiming that this response resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. The District Court declined to reconsider its response and denied Maxwell's motion.
+
+Maxwell appeals the District Court's denial and argues that the alleged constructive amendment is a per se violation of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, Maxwell argues that testimony about a witness's sexual abuse in New Mexico presented the jury with another basis for conviction, which is distinct from the charges in the Indictment. Similarly, Maxwell argues that this testimony resulted in a prejudicial variance from the Indictment. We disagree and affirm the District Court's denial.
+
+We review the denial of a motion claiming constructive amendment or prejudicial variance de novo.37 To satisfy the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, "an indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged and fairly inform the defendant of the charge against which he must defend."38 We have explained that to prevail on a constructive amendment claim, a defendant must demonstrate that "the terms of the indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense charged that there is a substantial
+
+intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law." A-205.
+
+<sup>37</sup> See United States v. Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2018).
+
+<sup>38</sup> United States v. Klwlupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021).
+
+likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment."" A constructive amendment requires reversal.40
+
+We cannot conclude that a constructive amendment resulted from the evidence presented by the Government—namely, Jane's testimony—or that it can be implied from the jury note. We have permitted significant flexibility in proof as long as a defendant was "given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial."41 In turn, "[t]he core of criminality of an offense involves the essence of a crime, in general terms; the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime falls outside that purview."42
+
+We agree with the District Court that the jury instructions, the evidence presented at trial, and the Government's summation captured the core of criminality. As the District Court noted, while the jury note was ambiguous in one sense, it was clear that it referred to the second element of Count Four of the Indictment. Therefore, the District Court correctly directed the jury to that instruction, which "accurately instructed that Count Four had to be predicated on finding
+
+<sup>,9</sup> United States v. Mathew, 849 F.2d 723, 729 (2d Cir. 1988).
+
+<sup>4°</sup> See United States v. D'Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 417 (2d Cir. 2012).
+
+United States v. Ionia Mgmt. S.A., 555 F.3d 303, 310 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (emphasis omitted).
+
+D'Ametio, 683 F.3d at 418 (internal quotation marks omitted).
+
+a violation of New York law."0 It is therefore not "uncertain whether [Maxwell] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury's indictment."M
+
+We also cannot conclude that the evidence at trial prejudicially varied from the Indictment. To allege a variance, a defendant "must establish that the evidence offered at trial differs materially from the evidence alleged in the indictment."5To prevail and win reversal, the defendant must further show "that substantial prejudice occurred at trial as a result" of the variance.a "A defendant cannot demonstrate that he has been prejudiced by a variance where the pleading and the proof substantially correspond, where the variance is not of a character that could have misled the defendant at the trial, and where the variance is not such as to deprive the accused of his right to be protected against another prosecution for the same offense."47
+
+For reasons similar to the ones noted above in the context of the constructive amendment, the evidence at trial did not prove facts
+
+<sup>43</sup> A-387; see United States v. 903 F.2d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The trial judge is in the best position to sense whether the jury is able to proceed properly with its deliberations, and (] has considerable discretion in determining how to respond to communications indicating that the jury is experiencing confusion.")
+
+<sup>41</sup> United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003).
+
+<sup>45</sup> Dove, 884 F.3d at 149
+
+<sup>46</sup> Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
+
+<sup>47</sup> Salmonese, 352 F.3d at 621-22 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Klialupsky, 5 F.4th at 294.
+
+"materially different" from the allegations in the Indictment.45 The evidence indicated that Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. Maxwell knew that the evidence also included conduct in New Mexico.49 Furthermore, Maxwell cannot demonstrate "substantial prejudice." Maxwell received—over three weeks before trial—notes of Jane's interview recording the abuse she suffered in New Mexico. This is enough to conclude that Maxwell was not "unfairly and substantially" prejudiced.50
+
+### 5. Maxwell's Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable
+
+Lastly, Maxwell argues that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the District Court erred in applying a leadership sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and inadequately explained its above-Guidelines sentence.5' We disagree.
+
+<sup>48</sup>Dave, 884 F.3d at 149.
+
+<sup>49</sup> As the District Court found, "[t]he Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various states, including Epstein's ranch in New Mexico." A-393.
+
+<sup>5°</sup> See United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (concluding that a defendant was not "unfairly and substantially" prejudiced because "[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits ... four weeks prior to trial").
+
+<sup>51</sup> At sentencing, the District Court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months' imprisonment and sentenced Maxwell to a slightly above-Guidelines term of 240 months' imprisonment.
+
+We review a sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness, which "amounts to review for abuse of discretion."52 We have explained that procedural error is found when a district court "fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the [Section] 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails adequately to explain the chosen sentence."53 The District Court did none of that. It is important to emphasize that the Sentencing Guidelines "are guidelines—that is, they are truly advisory."54 A District Court is "generally free to impose sentences outside the recommended range" based on its own "informed and individualized judgment."55
+
+With respect to the four-level leadership enhancement, the District Court found that Maxwell "supervised" in part because of testimony from two of Epstein's pilots who testified that was Maxwell's assistant. The District Court found that testimony credible, in part because it was corroborated by other testimony that Maxwell was Epstein's "number two and the lady of the house" in Palm Beach,
+
+<sup>52</sup> United States v. Gwent, 550 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). "Regardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range, the appellate court must review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard." Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
+
+<sup>53</sup> United States v. la 702 F.3d 22, 38 (2d Cir. 2012).
+
+<sup>54</sup> Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189.
+
+<sup>5</sup> td.
+
+where much of the abuse occurred and where worked.56 We therefore hold that the District Court did not err in applying the leadership enhancement.
+
+With respect to the length of the sentence, the District Court properly discussed the sentencing factors when imposing the sentence, and described, at length, Maxwell's "pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of the underaged girls through a series of deceptive tactics."57 The District Court recognized that the sentence "must reflect the gravity of Ms. Maxwell's conduct, of Ms. Maxwell's offense, the pivotal role she played in facilitating the offense, and the significant and lasting harm it inflicted."58 And the District Court explained that "a very serious, a very significant sentence is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment" under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In sum, the District Court did not err by failing to adequately explain its sentence.
+
+### CONCLUSION
+
+To summarize, we hold as follows:
+
+Se A-417.
+
+<sup>57</sup>SA-459.
+
+<sup>68</sup>SA-461.
+
+- 1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein's NPA with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY.
+- 2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment was filed within the statute of limitations.
+- 3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
+- 4. The District Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment.
+- 5. The District Court's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
+
+For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
+
+**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  
+FOR THE  
+SECOND CIRCUIT**
+
+---
+
+At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25<sup>th</sup> day of November, two thousand twenty-four.
+
+---
+
+United States of America,
+
+Appellee,
+
+v.
+
+Ghislaine Maxwell, AKA Sealed Defendant 1,
+
+Defendant - Appellant.
+
+---
+
+**ORDER**
+
+Docket No: 22-1426
+
+Appellant, Ghislaine Maxwell, filed a petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing *en banc*. The panel that determined the appeal has considered the request for panel rehearing, and the active members of the Court have considered the request for rehearing *en banc*.
+
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.
+
+FOR THE COURT:
+
+Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
+
+![]()

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822477/EFTA02822477.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,1374 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822477.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 27,
+  "chars": 40040,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 6.97,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "3.fn the \nIlniteb ikateO Court of Ropeal5 \nfor tbe iiperonb (Circuit",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            163.404,
+            130.41
+          ],
+          [
+            455.1234436035156,
+            130.41
+          ],
+          [
+            455.1234436035156,
+            200.9097900390625
+          ],
+          [
+            163.404,
+            200.9097900390625
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "I. BACKGROUND 1",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            242.964,
+            217.07999999999998
+          ],
+          [
+            371.4499816894531,
+            217.07999999999998
+          ],
+          [
+            371.4499816894531,
+            233.6214599609375
+          ],
+          [
+            242.964,
+            233.6214599609375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "1. Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            140.76,
+            430.11
+          ],
+          [
+            386.46405029296875,
+            430.11
+          ],
+          [
+            386.46405029296875,
+            446.991455078125
+          ],
+          [
+            140.76,
+            446.991455078125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "2. Maxwell's Indictment and Trial-Related Proceedings",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            140.148,
+            288.35999999999996
+          ],
+          [
+            468.833984375,
+            288.35999999999996
+          ],
+          [
+            468.833984375,
+            305.6214599609375
+          ],
+          [
+            140.148,
+            305.6214599609375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "II. DISCUSSION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            252.144,
+            163.62
+          ],
+          [
+            364.1832275390625,
+            163.62
+          ],
+          [
+            364.1832275390625,
+            179.6214599609375
+          ],
+          [
+            252.144,
+            179.6214599609375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar \nMaxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            135.252,
+            196.02
+          ],
+          [
+            499.20654296875,
+            196.02
+          ],
+          [
+            499.20654296875,
+            233.6214599609375
+          ],
+          [
+            135.252,
+            233.6214599609375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "2. The Indictment Is Timely",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            229.5,
+            163.62
+          ],
+          [
+            406.10223388671875,
+            163.62
+          ],
+          [
+            406.10223388671875,
+            179.75091552734375
+          ],
+          [
+            229.5,
+            179.75091552734375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying \nMaxwell's Motion for a New Trial",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 16,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            122.4,
+            109.35000000000001
+          ],
+          [
+            512.7940063476562,
+            109.35000000000001
+          ],
+          [
+            512.7940063476562,
+            146.25146484375
+          ],
+          [
+            122.4,
+            146.25146484375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "4. The District Court's Response to a Jury Note Did Not Result \nin a Constructive Amendment of, or Prejudicial Variance \nfrom, the Allegations in the Indictment",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 18,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            126.68399999999998,
+            162.81
+          ],
+          [
+            508.0685119628906,
+            162.81
+          ],
+          [
+            508.0685119628906,
+            221.75091552734375
+          ],
+          [
+            126.68399999999998,
+            221.75091552734375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "5. Maxwell's Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 22,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            156.06,
+            310.23
+          ],
+          [
+            478.8101501464844,
+            310.23
+          ],
+          [
+            478.8101501464844,
+            326.6214904785156
+          ],
+          [
+            156.06,
+            326.6214904785156
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CONCLUSION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 24,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            258.264,
+            481.14
+          ],
+          [
+            358.16070556640625,
+            481.14
+          ],
+          [
+            358.16070556640625,
+            497.991455078125
+          ],
+          [
+            258.264,
+            497.991455078125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 26,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            181.76399999999998,
+            72.9
+          ],
+          [
+            442.476,
+            72.9
+          ],
+          [
+            442.476,
+            116.63999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            181.76399999999998,
+            116.63999999999999
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "ORDER",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 26,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            367.812,
+            281.07
+          ],
+          [
+            416.15999999999997,
+            281.07
+          ],
+          [
+            416.15999999999997,
+            293.21999999999997
+          ],
+          [
+            367.812,
+            293.21999999999997
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            37
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            19
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            10
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            57
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            29
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            48
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            25
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            57
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            29
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            55
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            68
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            29
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 6,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            57
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            27
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 7,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            51
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            51
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            24
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 9,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            69
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            31
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 10,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            58
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            27
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 11,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            65
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            28
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 12,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            56
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            66
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            28
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 14,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            65
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            30
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 15,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            59
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            25
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 16,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            71
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            27
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 17,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            64
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 18,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            62
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            29
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 19,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            63
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            28
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 20,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            61
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 21,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            69
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            28
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            5
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 22,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            67
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            28
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 23,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            70
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            28
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 24,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            54
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            23
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 25,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            30
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            16
+          ],
+          [
+            "ListItem",
+            5
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "ListGroup",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 26,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            44
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            24
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            21
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822477"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822504/EFTA02822504.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+App. No: 24A709
+
+## in the \*upreinr Court of the 'Unite) Otates
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+
+Petitioner,
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+
+Respondent.
+
+## PETITIONER'S AMENDED APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
+
+To the Honorable Sonia Sotomayor, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
+
+1. Petitioner Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully requests that the time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this case be extended for forty five days to April 10, 2025. The court of appeals issued the Order denying the Petition for Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc on November 25, 2024. Absent an extension of time, the petition would be due on Monday, February 24, 2025. Petitioner is filing this Application at least ten days before the due date. See S.Ct. R. 13-5. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
+
+2. Petitioner seeks review of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based on substantial questions relating to that court's resolution of petitioner's appeal. Specifically, the Second Circuit's opinion acknowledged that it deepened a circuit split on whether a plea agreement is binding on federal prosecutors in districts other than the one in which it is entered. See United States v. Maxwell, 118 F. 4th 256 n.11 (2nd Cir. 2024) ("recogniz[ing] that circuits have been split on this issue").
+
+3. Undersinged counsel was just retained yesterday, on January 14, 2024. Due to case-related and other reasons, additional time is necessary and warranted for counsel to research the decisional conflicts, and prepare a clear, concise, and comprehensive petition for certiorari for the Court's review. The press of other matters makes the submission of the petition difficult absent an extension, especially because Petitioner engaged undersigned counsel just this week to represent her in the Supreme Court. For example, Counsel is scheduled to commence a multi-defendant trial on March 3, 2025, United States v. Diego Sanudo Chocron, Southern District of Florida, case number 24-cr-20155-RAR(s). In addition, counsel is due to file a reply brief in this Court in Elizabeth Peters Young v. United States, case number 24-571, shortly after the Goverment files its response on January 22, 2025.
+
+Therefore, because of the importance of this issue, and the need to draft a meaningful petition on such short notice, undersigned counsel is respectfully requesting an additional 45 days in the matter to file until April 10, 2025.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+For the foregoing reasons, the time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this matter should be extended forty five days to and including April 10, 2025.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+MARKUS, PLLC
+
+40 N.W. Third Street
+
+Penthouse One
+
+Miami, Florida 33128
+
+Tel: (305) 379-6667
+
+Fax: (305)379-6668
+
+markuslaw.com
+
+By: /s/ David Oscar Markus
+
+David Oscar Markus
+
+Florida Bar Number 119318
+
+dmarkus@markuslaw.com
+
+January 2025

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822504/EFTA02822504.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822504.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 3,
+  "chars": 2994,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 0.91,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "in the \n*upreinr Court of the 'Unite) Otates",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            148.10399999999998,
+            99.63
+          ],
+          [
+            457.0348205566406,
+            99.63
+          ],
+          [
+            457.0348205566406,
+            140.41876220703125
+          ],
+          [
+            148.10399999999998,
+            140.41876220703125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "PETITIONER'S AMENDED APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME \nTO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            115.66799999999999,
+            334.53
+          ],
+          [
+            496.5208435058594,
+            334.53
+          ],
+          [
+            496.5208435058594,
+            366.2419738769531
+          ],
+          [
+            115.66799999999999,
+            366.2419738769531
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "Conclusion",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            271.728,
+            70.47
+          ],
+          [
+            339.913818359375,
+            70.47
+          ],
+          [
+            339.913818359375,
+            85.74200439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            271.728,
+            85.74200439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            44
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            22
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            9
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            37
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            19
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            35
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            18
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            14
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822504"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822507/EFTA02822507.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+![](_page_0_Picture_148.jpeg)
+
+Web Site:  
+www.wilsonepes.com
+
+Tel (202) 789-0096  
+Fax (202) 842-4896
+
+No. 24-\_\_\_\_
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
+
+*Petitioner,*
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+
+*Respondent.*
+
+AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 10, 2025, three (3) copies of the PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:
+
+D. JOHN SAUER  
+Solicitor General  
+U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE  
+950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW  
+Washington, DC 20530  
+(202) 514-2217
+
+*Counsel for United States of America*
+
+The following email addresses have also been served electronically:
+
+supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov
+
+dmarkus@markuslaw.com
+
+![]()ROBYN DORSEY WILLIS  
+WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC.  
+1115 H Street, N.E.  
+Washington, D.C. 20002  
+(202) 789-0096
+
+Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of April 2025.
+
+![]()AZA SALINDER DONNER  
+NOTARY PUBLIC  
+District of Columbia
+
+![](_page_0_Picture_172.jpeg)

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822507/EFTA02822507.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822507.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 1,
+  "chars": 1026,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 5.57,
+  "image_assets": [
+    "_page_0_Picture_148.jpeg",
+    "_page_0_Picture_172.jpeg"
+  ],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            236.232,
+            256.77
+          ],
+          [
+            376.992,
+            256.77
+          ],
+          [
+            376.992,
+            270.54
+          ],
+          [
+            236.232,
+            270.54
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            81
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            45
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            41
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822507"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822508/EFTA02822508.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+IN THE  
+Supreme Court of the United States
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,  
+*Petitioner*,
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
+*Respondent.*
+
+**On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the  
+United States Court of Appeals  
+for the Second Circuit**
+
+### PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
+
+**CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE**
+
+As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 4,956 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+
+Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of April 2025
+
+s 10th day of April 2025.
+
+AZA SALINDER DONNER  
+NOTARY PUBLIC  
+District of Columbia
+
+My commission expires April 30, 2029.

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822508/EFTA02822508.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822508.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 1,
+  "chars": 763,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 143.1,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "IN THE Supreme Court of the United States",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            172.58399999999997,
+            102.05999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            442.476,
+            102.05999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            442.476,
+            140.13
+          ],
+          [
+            172.58399999999997,
+            140.13
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            182.37599999999998,
+            284.31
+          ],
+          [
+            433.908,
+            284.31
+          ],
+          [
+            433.908,
+            326.43
+          ],
+          [
+            182.37599999999998,
+            326.43
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            181.76399999999998,
+            364.5
+          ],
+          [
+            434.5199999999999,
+            364.5
+          ],
+          [
+            434.5199999999999,
+            378.27
+          ],
+          [
+            181.76399999999998,
+            378.27
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            200.73600000000002,
+            422.82
+          ],
+          [
+            414.93600000000004,
+            422.82
+          ],
+          [
+            414.93600000000004,
+            436.59000000000003
+          ],
+          [
+            200.73600000000002,
+            436.59000000000003
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            14
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Caption",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822508"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822668/EFTA02822668.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)
+
+## U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General
+
+Washington. D.C. 20530
+
+May 7, 2025
+
+Honorable Scott S. Harris Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543
+
+> Re: Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States of America, S.Ct. No. 24-1073
+
+Dear Mr. Harris:
+
+The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above-captioned case was filed on April 10, 2025, and placed on the docket on April 14, 2025. The government's response is due on May 14, 2025.
+
+We respectfully request, under Rule 30.4 of the rules of this Court, an extension of time to and including June 13, 2025, within which to file the government's response.
+
+This extension is requested to complete preparation of the government's response, which was delayed because of the heavy press of earlier assigned cases to the attorneys handling this matter.
+
+Sincerely,
+
+D John Sauer Solicitor General
+
+cc: See Attached Service List
+
+24-1073 MAXWELL, GHISLAINE USA
+
+> SARA KROPF KROPF MOSELEY SCHMITT PLLC 1100 H STREET, NW SUITE 1220 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-627-6900 SARA@KMLAWFIRM.COM
+
+DAVID OSCAR MARKUS MARKUS, PLLC 40 N.W. 3RD STREET PENTHOUSE ONE MIAMI, FL 33128 305-379-6667 DMARKUS@MARKUSLAW.COM

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822668/EFTA02822668.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822668.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 2,
+  "chars": 1209,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 0.74,
+  "image_assets": [
+    "_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg"
+  ],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "U.S. Department of Justice \nOffice of the Solicitor General",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            319.464,
+            85.85999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            455.32196044921875,
+            85.85999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            455.32196044921875,
+            110.59759521484375
+          ],
+          [
+            319.464,
+            110.59759521484375
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            43
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            22
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            11
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            35
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            18
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822668"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822670/EFTA02822670.md

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+# IN THE tz,upreine Tourt of Ilse Month \*tutee
+
+UHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+
+Petitioner,
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Respondent.
+
+ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
+
+# BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
+
+JEFFREY T. Co-Chair Amicus Committee NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS 1600 L Street NW Washington, DC 20036
+
+SARA ELIZABETH KROPF Counsel of Record KROPF MOSELEY SCHMITT PLLC 1100 H Street NW Suite 1220 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 627-6900 sara@kmlawfirm.com Counsel forAmicus Curiae
+
+120443
+
+![](_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg)
+
+COUNSEL PRESS
+
+(800)274-8321 • (800)359-6869
+
+# TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+| TABLE OF CONTENTS                             | Page                                      |
+|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
+| TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES                    | ii                                        |
+| INTEREST OF AMICI                             | 1                                         |
+| ARGUMENT                                      | 2                                         |
+| ARGUMENT                                      | 3                                         |
+| 1. government's promises and courts should    | Defendants should be able to rely on the  |
+| not hesitate to enforce them                  | 3                                         |
+| 2. draft plea agreements to bind only part of | The Department of Justice knows how to    |
+| the Department in future prosecutions         | 8                                         |
+| 3.                                            | The consistent practice of USAOs to limit |
+| contrast to the scope of the NPA here         | 12                                        |
+| CONCLUSION                                    | 13                                        |
+
+### TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
+
+| Cases: Brady v. United States,                                                          | Page |
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
+| 397 U.S. 742 (1970) Giglio v. United States,                                            | 4, 5 |
+| 405 U.S. 150 (1972) McCarthy v. United States,                                          | 12   |
+| 394 U.S. 459 (1969) Missouri v. Frye,                                                   | 4, 5 |
+| 566 U.S. 134 (2012) Puckett v. United States,                                           | 4, 7 |
+| 556 U.S. 129 (2009) United States a Amani Investments, No. 2:23-cr-00014-JAM, ECF No. 8 | 4    |
+| (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023) United States v. Barnes, United States v. Chuong,              | 8    |
+| No. 1:21-er-00164, ECF No. 67 (July 7, 2022) United States a Coccagna,                  | 9    |
+
+### iii
+
+# Cited Authorities
+
+### Page
+
+| United States v. Detloff Marketing and Asset Management, Inc, No. 18-cr-00197-PAM-HB, ECF No. 96 |    |
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|
+| (July 25, 2019) United States v. Ellison,                                                        | 10 |
+| No. 22-CR-673 (RA) (Dec. 18, 2022) United States v. Gebbie,                                      | 11 |
+| 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002) United States v. Giaquinto, No. 2:22-cr-00035-MHH-GMB, ECF No. 326   | 6  |
+| (Nov. 18, 2024)                                                                                  | 8  |
+| United States v. ' United States v. Goldfield, No. 1:16-cr-00513-JBS, ECF No. 39                 |    |
+| (Dec. 22, 2016) United States v. Koo, No. 2:23-cr-00568-DSF-1, ECF No. 8                         | 11 |
+| (Nov. 20, 2023) United States v. Lafarge S.A., No. 1:22-cr-00444-WFK, ECF No. 10                 | 9  |
+| (Oct. 18, 2022)                                                                                  | 11 |
+
+iv
+
+### Cited Authorities
+
+| United States v. Malik, No. 4:24-cr-00010-HEA, ECF No. 127                                    | Page |
+|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
+| (Apr. 4, 2023) United States v. McIntyre,                                                     | 10   |
+| No. 1:24-er-00211, ECF No. 33 (Dec. 19, 2024) United StatAs v. Osorto,                        | 8    |
+| 445 F. Supp. 3d 103 (N.D. Cal. 2020) United States v. Patel, No. 1:19-er-00081-RDM, ECF No. 4 | 7    |
+| (Apr. 4, 2019) United States v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., No. 2:23-cr-20174-LVP-DRG, ECF No. 12 | 9    |
+| (May 18, 2023) United States a =,                                                             | 10   |
+| No. 1:23-er-00064, ECF No. 8-1 (Mar. 3, 2023) Rules:                                          | 9    |
+| Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2)                                                                     | 5    |
+| Sup. Ct. R. 37.2                                                                              | 1    |
+| Sup. Ct. R. 37.6                                                                              | 1    |
+
+# Cited Authorities
+
+| Other Authorities: resources/editorialfiles/202 2/12/21/ 1671676065196 -Caroline_Ellison_Plea_ | Page                      |
+|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
+| Agreement.pdf                                                                                  | 11                        |
+| Robert H.                                                                                      | , The Federal Prosecutor, |
+| 24 J. AM. JUDICATURE SOC'Y 18 (1940)                                                           | 7                         |
+| Justice Manual § 9-27.630                                                                      | 13                        |
+| 67 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1413 (2010)                                                             | 6                         |
+
+### INTEREST OF AMICI<sup>1</sup>
+
+The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is a nonprofit voluntary professional bar association that works on behalf of criminal defendants to ensure justice and due process for those accused of crime or misconduct. Founded in 1958, NACDL has a nationwide membership of thousands of direct members and up to 40,000 affiliates. NACDL's members include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, military defense counsel, law professors, and judges. NACDL is the only nationwide professional bar association for public defenders and criminal defense lawyers.
+
+NACDL is dedicated to advancing the proper, efficient, and fair administration of justice. NACDL files numerous amicus briefs each year in this Court and other federal and state courts, seeking to provide assistance in cases that present issues of broad importance to criminal defendants, criminal defense lawyers, and the criminal justice system as a whole. Given their prevalence, the interpretation of plea agreements is a question of great importance to NACDL and the clients its members represent. NACDL is well positioned to provide additional insight into the implications of this issue for criminal defendants across the country.
+
+---
+
+1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amicus curiae states that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and no entity or person, aside from amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel, made any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, amicus curiae provided notice to the parties.
+
+## INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
+
+Defendants in criminal cases rely on the promises made by the Department of Justice when deciding whether to plead guilty and face the life-altering consequences of doing so. The government's promises, made in return for demanding the defendant's waiver of constitutional rights, should be rigorously enforced. Yet the lower court permitted the government to escape its promises and incorrectly limited the scope of the non-prosecution and plea agreement (NPA) well beyond its plain language.
+
+The intentionally broad scope of this NPA may be surprising in retrospect but that does not change the words on the page. Indeed, a survey of plea agreements from across the country shows that the Department of Justice knows how to limit a plea agreement's reach to a single prosecutorial district rather than making it a nationwide restriction against future prosecution. Where, as here, the "United States . . . agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators" (App. 31a), without imposing any geographic limitation, no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district.
+
+The Department of Justice directs prosecutors to be careful when exercising their authority to bind the entire Department but there is no question that prosecutors have the authority to do so. That they rarely exercise this authority is not a ground for invalidating it, quite the opposite.
+
+Amicus NACDL urges the Court to grant this petition and resolve the conflict among the circuits to ensure that the government keeps its promises.
+
+### **ARGUMENT**
+
+The Department of Justice (the “Department”) routinely limits the scope of its plea agreements to the specific United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) that is a party to the agreement. Prosecutors in other districts and other parts of the Department could therefore later charge the defendant for the same or related conduct. Where, as here, the government chooses not to adopt limiting language, a court should not negate its bargained-for promise to the defendant and instead enforce the language as written. Amicus urges the Court to grant the petition to resolve the split among the circuits and ensure that defendants and their counsel can rely on the promises made by the United States in its written agreements.
+
+#### **1. Defendants should be able to rely on the government’s promises and courts should not hesitate to enforce them.**
+
+Like any party to any contract, defendants in criminal cases rely on the promises made by the Department. And defendants give up a lot in return. A defendant entering into a plea agreement forgoes his constitutional right to a trial by jury and right to appeal, faces the near certainty of a prison sentence and loss of freedom, agrees to pay financial penalties through fines and forfeiture, and faces the myriad collateral effects of a criminal conviction after serving the sentence.
+
+“The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities in the plea bargain process, responsibilities that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires in the criminal process at critical stages.” *Missouri v. Frye*, 566 U.S. 134, 143 (2012). That responsibility, borne by NACDL’s members, requires defense counsel to explain the benefits and drawbacks of a plea agreement to their clients.
+
+As a practical matter, every criminal defendant hopes that a plea agreement will end their exposure to future prosecution for the same or related conduct. Defense counsel must explain to their clients that while a plea agreement ensures that the client is not charged for the same or related conduct in that district, most plea agreements expose the client to prosecution in other districts. It creates an impossible situation if defense counsel must now explain to their clients that the court may later excuse the Department from its promises.
+
+Guilty pleas must be knowing and voluntary. *McCarthy v. United States*, 394 U.S. 459, 466 (1969). As the Court has explained, “[i]t is precisely because the plea was knowing and voluntary . . . that the Government is obligated to uphold its side of the bargain.” *Puckett v. United States*, 556 U.S. 129, 137–38 (2009). A “guilty plea is a grave and solemn act to be accepted only with care and discernment.” *Brady v. United States*, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). A plea “is more than an admission of past conduct; it is the defendant’s consent that judgment of conviction may be entered without a trial—a waiver of his right to trial before a jury or a judge. Waivers of constitutional
+
+rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” *Id.* A defendant, however, cannot have “sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences” of a plea agreement if the United States can change the plain language of the agreement down the road without the defendant’s consent.
+
+Likewise, a court cannot discharge its crucial role in the plea process if it does not know whether to trust United States’ words. The court is not a rubber stamp in the plea process. Rather, the Rule 11(b)-mandated plea colloquy “is designed to assist the district judge in making the constitutionally required determination that a defendant’s guilty plea is truly voluntary.” *McCarthy*, 394 U.S. at 465. The court, through this colloquy, must personally interrogate the defendant on the record to ensure that a plea is voluntary in part by establishing that the plea agreement contains all promises made to the defendant in return for his consent to plead guilty. *See* Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2) (“Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).”).
+
+This case involves an unusually broad non-prosecution agreement. But nothing in the law permits the United States to break its promises simply because the promise is an atypical one.
+
+During plea negotiations, the Department wields extraordinary leverage as compared to a criminal
+
+defendant. Even the most ably represented defendant cannot overcome this unequal balance of power. The government's substantial "advantage in bargaining power" means that ambiguities like this one must be construed against the government. *United States v. Gebbie*, 294 F.3d 540, 552 (3d Cir. 2002).
+
+Defense counsel confront their clients' unequal bargaining power every time they attempt to obtain a resolution that is in the best interest of their client while mollifying a prosecutor who has little institutional incentive to be lenient. Judge Charles Breyer accurately described the process:
+
+It is no answer to say that [the defendant] is striking a deal with the Government, and could reject this term if he wanted to, because that statement does not reflect the reality of the bargaining table. See Erik Luna & Marianne Wade, *Prosecutors as Judges*, 67 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1413, 1414–15 (2010). As to terms such as this one, plea agreements are contracts of adhesion. The Government offers the defendant a deal, and the defendant can take it or leave it. *Id.* ("American prosecutors . . . choose whether to engage in plea negotiations and the terms of an acceptable agreement."). If he leaves it, he does so at his peril. And the peril is real, because on the other side of the offer is the enormous power of the United States Attorney to investigate, to order arrests, to bring a case or to dismiss it, to recommend a sentence or the conditions of supervised release, and on
+
+and on. See Robert H. [REDACTED], *The Federal Prosecutor*, 24 J. AM. JUDICATURE SOC'Y 18, 18 (1940).
+
+*United States v. Osorto*, 445 F. Supp. 3d 103, 109 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
+
+To permit the United States to escape the plain language of its agreement in this case would work a detriment on the entire plea system. This is of particular concern given that the criminal justice system "is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials." *Missouri v. Frye*, 566 U.S. at 143–44. For the plea system to work in practice, defense counsel and defendants must be able to rely on the written promises made by the government and trust that courts will honor and enforce those promises down the road, even when it means that the Department must forego a meritorious prosecution.
+
+Consider a situation where a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a violent felony that will bring substantial prison time. He agrees to plead only because the "United States" promises in writing that it will not charge any co-conspirators in the offense, including the defendant's brother, and because the plea agreement contains no geographic or other limitation on that promise. The defendant should be able to rely on the government's bargained-for promise that he alone will suffer incarceration. And a prosecutor in a different district must not be permitted to charge his brother with conspiracy to commit the same offense.
+
+**2. The Department of Justice knows how to draft plea agreements to bind only part of the Department in future prosecutions.**
+
+As the trial court correctly noted, “[s]ingle district plea agreements are the norm.” (App. 56a) A survey of plea agreements from districts across the county reveals that the Department of Justice routinely drafts plea agreements with this limited single-district scope.
+
+Here are examples from districts across the country:
+
+**Middle District of Alabama:** “The defendant understands that this agreement binds only the Office of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama and that the agreement does not bind any other component of the United States Department of Justice, nor does it bind any state or local prosecuting authority.” *United States v. McIntyre*, No. 1:24-cr-00211, ECF No. 33 (Dec. 19, 2024), at 14.
+
+**Northern District of Alabama:** “The Defendant understands and agrees that this Agreement does not bind any other United States Attorney in any other district, or any other state or local authority.” *United States v. Giaquinto*, No. 2:22-cr-00035-MHH-GMB, ECF No. 326 (Nov. 18, 2024), at 13.
+
+**Eastern District of California:** “This plea agreement is limited to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California and cannot bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authorities.” *United States v. Amani Investments*, No. 2:23-cr-00014-JAM, ECF No. 8 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023), at 1.
+
+**Central District of California:** “This agreement is limited to the [Central District of California] USAO and cannot bind any other federal, state, local, or foreign prosecuting, enforcement, administrative, or regulatory authorities.” *United States v. Koo*, No. 2:23-cr-00568-DSF-1, ECF No. 8 (Nov. 20, 2023), at 1.
+
+**District of Colorado:** “This agreement binds only the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado and the defendant.” *United States v. Chuong*, No. 1:21-cr-00164, ECF No. 67 (July 7, 2022), at 1.
+
+**District of Columbia:** “Your client further understands that this Agreement is binding only upon the Criminal and Superior Court Divisions of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia as well as the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section. This Agreement does not bind the Civil Division of this Office or any other United States Attorney’s Office, nor does it bind any other state, local, or federal prosecutor.” *United States v. Patel*, No. 1:19-cr-00081-RDM, ECF No. 4 (April 4, 2019), at 11–12.
+
+**Northern District of Georgia:** “The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia agrees not to bring further criminal charges against the Defendant related to the charges to which he is pleading guilty. The Defendant understands that this provision does not bar prosecution by any other federal, state, or local jurisdiction.” *United States v. [REDACTED]*, No. 1:23-cr-00064, ECF No. 8-1 (Mar. 3, 2023), at 4.
+
+**Southern District of Indiana:** “This document and the addendum constitute the complete and only Plea
+
+Agreement between the Defendant, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, and the Civil Rights Division and is binding only on the parties to the agreement, supersede all prior understandings, if any, whether written or oral, and cannot be modified except in writing, signed by all parties and filed with the Court, or on the record in open court.” *United States v. [REDACTED]*, No. 1:20-cr-00094, ECF No. 148 (Mar. 30, 2022), at 17.
+
+**Eastern District of Michigan:** “The Defendant understands and agrees that this Agreement is between the Fraud Section and the Defendant and does not bind any other division or section of the Department of Justice or any other federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authority.” *United States v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc.*, No. 2:23-cr-20174-LVP-DRG, ECF No. 12 (May 18, 2023), at 4.
+
+**District of Minnesota:** “This Plea Agreement binds only the Defendant and the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. . . . This Plea Agreement does not bind any other state or federal agency.” *United States v. Detloff Marketing and Asset Management, Inc.*, No. 18-cr-00197-PAM-HB, ECF No. 96 (July 25, 2019), at 1.
+
+**Eastern District of Missouri:** “This agreement does not, and is not intended to, bind any governmental office or agency other than the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri.” *United States v. Malik*, No. 4:24-cr-00010-HEA, ECF No. 127 (Apr. 4, 2023), at 1.
+
+**Eastern District of New York:** “The Defendants understand and agree that this Agreement is among
+
+the Office [Eastern District of New York USAO], the NSD [National Security Division of the United States Department of Justice], and the Defendants, and does not bind any other division or section of the Department of Justice or any other federal, state, local or foreign prosecuting, administrative or regulatory authority.” *United States v. Lafarge S.A.*, No. 1:22-cr-00444-WFK, ECF No. 10 (Oct. 18, 2022), at 3.
+
+**District of New Jersey:** “This agreement is limited to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities.” *United States v. Goldfield*, No. 1:16-cr-00513-JBS, ECF No. 39 (Dec. 22, 2016), at 4.
+
+**Southern District of New York:** “This Agreement does not bind any federal, state, or local prosecuting authority other than this Office.” *United States v. Ellison*, No. 22-CR-673 (RA), at 4 (Dec. 18, 2022), at 4.<sup>2</sup>
+
+**Middle District of Pennsylvania:** “Nothing in this Agreement shall bind any other United States Attorney’s Office, state prosecutor’s office, or federal, state or local law enforcement agency.” *United States v. Coccagna*, No. 1:22-cr-00407-YK, ECF No. 3-1 (Dec. 2, 2022), at 29.
+
+**Northern District of Texas.** “This agreement is limited to the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, and
+
+---
+
+2. Available at [https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2022/12/21/1671676065196-Caroline\\_Ellison\\_Plea\\_Agreement.pdf](https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2022/12/21/1671676065196-Caroline_Ellison_Plea_Agreement.pdf) (accessed May 5, 2025).
+
+does not bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting authorities, nor does it prohibit any civil or administrative proceeding against the defendant or any property.” *United States v. Barnes*, No. 3:19-cr-00112-K, ECF No. 355 (Apr. 1, 2022), at 7.
+
+### **3. The consistent practice of USAOs to limit the scope of plea agreements stands in stark contrast to the scope of the NPA here.**
+
+The trial court correctly noted that “[n]ationwide, unlimited agreements are the rare exception.” (App. at 56a). The fact that this NPA is a “rare exception” to Department’s general practice does not void the agreement’s broad reach. In fact, the rarity of nationwide agreements is a persuasive reason to enforce it because there can be no question that the choice of language was intentional and a key part of the parties’ bargain.
+
+This situation is no different than a contractual provision that binds a corporate subsidiary and, by extension, the parent corporation. Unless the subsidiary plainly lacked authority to enter into the agreement, that provision is enforceable against the parent. Similarly, one USAO has the authority to bind the entire Department. “[T]he prosecutor’s office is an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government.” *Giglio v. United States*, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972).
+
+Recognizing that one prosecutor can bind all prosecutor, the Justice Manual instructs prosecutors that non-prosecution agreements should “be drawn in
+
+terms that will not bind other federal prosecutors or agencies without their consent” and “the attorney for the government should explicitly limit the scope of his/her agreement to non-prosecution within his/her district.” Justice Manual § 9-27.630.<sup>3</sup> Given this instruction, when Department attorneys choose to draft a broad agreement, the court should enforce it as written. The NPA’s broad language served the government’s strategy at the time of the agreement. The Court should not permit the government to escape that language, even if that strategy may seem unwise or unintelligible with the benefit of hindsight.
+
+### CONCLUSION
+
+The Court should grant review in this case to resolve the conflict among the circuits identified by petitioner and hold the Department of Justice to its word.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+| JEFFREY T. ██████████    | SARA ELIZABETH KROPF             |
+|--------------------------|----------------------------------|
+| <i>Co-Chair Amicus</i>   | <i>Counsel of Record</i>         |
+| <i>Committee</i>         | KROPF MOSELEY SCHMITT            |
+| NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF  | PLLC                             |
+| CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS | 1100 H Street NW                 |
+| 1600 L Street NW         | Suite 1220                       |
+| Washington, DC 20036     | Washington, DC 20005             |
+|                          | (202) 627-6900                   |
+|                          | sara@kmlawfirm.com               |
+|                          | <i>Counsel for Amicus Curiae</i> |
+
+---
+
+3. Available at <https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.330> (accessed May 5, 2025).

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822670/EFTA02822670.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,997 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822670.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 19,
+  "chars": 26732,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 10.08,
+  "image_assets": [
+    "_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg"
+  ],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "IN THE \ntz,upreine Tourt of Ilse Month *tutee",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            162.792,
+            118.25999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            437.4703063964844,
+            118.25999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            437.4703063964844,
+            157.80322265625
+          ],
+          [
+            162.792,
+            157.80322265625
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIONAL \nASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE \nLAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            150.552,
+            390.41999999999996
+          ],
+          [
+            447.8577880859375,
+            390.41999999999996
+          ],
+          [
+            447.8577880859375,
+            442.5048828125
+          ],
+          [
+            150.552,
+            442.5048828125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            229.5,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            372.85491943359375,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            372.85491943359375,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            229.5,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            203.18400000000003,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            410.4043273925781,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            410.4043273925781,
+            185.48699951171875
+          ],
+          [
+            203.18400000000003,
+            185.48699951171875
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "iii",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            291.312,
+            142.56
+          ],
+          [
+            310.94384765625,
+            142.56
+          ],
+          [
+            310.94384765625,
+            158.86700439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            291.312,
+            158.86700439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "Cited Authorities",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            250.308,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            351.33868408203125,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            351.33868408203125,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            250.308,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "Page",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            415.54800000000006,
+            191.96999999999997
+          ],
+          [
+            449.9984436035156,
+            191.96999999999997
+          ],
+          [
+            449.9984436035156,
+            208.36700439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            415.54800000000006,
+            208.36700439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "Cited Authorities",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            256.428,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            357.33868408203125,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            357.33868408203125,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            256.428,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "Cited Authorities",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            249.696,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            351.33868408203125,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            351.33868408203125,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            249.696,
+            185.86700439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "INTEREST OF AMICI 1",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 6,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            234.39600000000002,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            369.64799999999997,
+            168.48
+          ],
+          [
+            369.64799999999997,
+            182.25
+          ],
+          [
+            234.39600000000002,
+            182.25
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 7,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            217.26,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            388.00800000000004,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            388.00800000000004,
+            196.82999999999998
+          ],
+          [
+            217.26,
+            196.82999999999998
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "ARGUMENT",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            262.548,
+            225.18
+          ],
+          [
+            341.49600000000004,
+            225.18
+          ],
+          [
+            341.49600000000004,
+            238.95
+          ],
+          [
+            262.548,
+            238.95
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "1. Defendants should be able to rely on the government\u2019s promises and courts should not hesitate to enforce them.",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            151.164,
+            450.36
+          ],
+          [
+            453.49199999999996,
+            450.36
+          ],
+          [
+            453.49199999999996,
+            490.86
+          ],
+          [
+            151.164,
+            490.86
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "2. The Department of Justice knows how to draft plea agreements to bind only part of the Department in future prosecutions.",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            152.388,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            453.49199999999996,
+            169.29
+          ],
+          [
+            453.49199999999996,
+            211.41
+          ],
+          [
+            152.388,
+            211.41
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "3. The consistent practice of USAOs to limit the scope of plea agreements stands in stark contrast to the scope of the NPA here.",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 17,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            151.776,
+            252.71999999999997
+          ],
+          [
+            454.104,
+            252.71999999999997
+          ],
+          [
+            454.104,
+            295.65
+          ],
+          [
+            151.776,
+            295.65
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CONCLUSION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 18,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            258.876,
+            351.53999999999996
+          ],
+          [
+            345.16799999999995,
+            351.53999999999996
+          ],
+          [
+            345.16799999999995,
+            365.31000000000006
+          ],
+          [
+            258.876,
+            365.31000000000006
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            65
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            33
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            11
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            37
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            19
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            47
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            24
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            54
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            45
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            23
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            27
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            14
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 6,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 7,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 9,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 10,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 11,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 12,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            10
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 14,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            10
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 15,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            10
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 16,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            10
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 17,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 18,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            11
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822670"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822689/EFTA02822689.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+No. 24-1073
+
+-----X
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+
+*Petitioner,*
+
+*v.*
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+*Respondent.*
+
+-----X
+
+**CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE**
+
+As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 3,097 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+
+Executed on this 9<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2025.
+
+![]()\_\_\_\_\_  
+Rina Danielson
+
+Sworn to and subscribed before me  
+this 9<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2025.
+
+![]()**MARIANA BRAYLOVSKIY**  
+Notary Public State of New York  
+No. 01BR6004935  
+Qualified in Richmond County  
+Commission Expires March 30, 2026  
+#120443

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822689/EFTA02822689.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822689.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 1,
+  "chars": 704,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 3.96,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            68.544,
+            49.41
+          ],
+          [
+            337.21200000000005,
+            49.41
+          ],
+          [
+            337.21200000000005,
+            63.17999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            68.544,
+            63.17999999999999
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            194.00400000000002,
+            294.84000000000003
+          ],
+          [
+            413.712,
+            294.84000000000003
+          ],
+          [
+            413.712,
+            308.61
+          ],
+          [
+            194.00400000000002,
+            308.61
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            55
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            31
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Caption",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822689"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822690/EFTA02822690.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+## AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
+
+## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
+
+No. 24-1073
+
+X
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+
+Petitioner,
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Respondent
+
+X
+
+STATE OF NEW YORK )
+
+COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
+
+I, Rina Danielson, being duly sworn according to law and being over the age of 18, upon my oath depose and say that:
+
+I am retained by Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae.
+
+That on the 9th day of May, 2025, I served the within Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner in the above-captioned matter upon:
+
+David Oscar Markus Markus= Attorneys for Petitioner 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, FL 33128 (305) 379-6667 dmarkus@markuslaw.com
+
+D. John Sauer Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Attorneys for Respondent 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
+
+by sending three copies of same, addressed to each individual respectively, and enclosed in a properly addressed wrapper, through the United States Postal
+
+Service, by Priority Mail, postage prepaid. An electronic version was also served by email to each individual.
+
+That on the same date as above, I sent to this Court forty copies and 1 unbound copy of the within *Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner* through the Overnight Next Day Federal Express, postage prepaid. In addition, the brief has been submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.
+
+All parties required to be served have been served.
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+
+Executed on this 9<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2025.
+
+![]()
+
+---
+
+Rina Danielson
+
+Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2025.
+
+![]()**MARIANA BRAYLOVSKIY**  
+Notary Public State of New York  
+No. 01BR6004935  
+Qualified in Richmond County  
+Commission Expires March 30, 2026  
+#120443

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822690/EFTA02822690.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822690.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 2,
+  "chars": 1933,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 4.08,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            87.51599999999999,
+            72.08999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            244.38339233398438,
+            72.08999999999999
+          ],
+          [
+            244.38339233398438,
+            87.24200439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            87.51599999999999,
+            87.24200439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            87.51599999999999,
+            101.25
+          ],
+          [
+            358.17364501953125,
+            101.25
+          ],
+          [
+            358.17364501953125,
+            116.49200439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            87.51599999999999,
+            116.49200439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            75
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            37
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            16
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            51
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            23
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            20
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "Caption",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822690"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822692/EFTA02822692.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)
+
+Office of the Solicitor General
+
+Washington, D.C. 20530
+
+June 6, 2025
+
+Honorable Scott S. Harris Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543
+
+Re: Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States No. 24-1073
+
+Dear Mr. Harris:
+
+The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above-captioned case was filed on April 10, 2025, and placed on the docket on April 14, 2025. The government's response is now due, after one extension, on June 13, 2025. We respectfully request, under Rule 30.4 of the Rules of this Court, a further extension of time to and including July 14, 2025, within which to file the government's response.
+
+This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for preparation of the government's response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.
+
+Counsel for petitioner does not oppose this further extension.
+
+Sincerely,
+
+D. John Sauer Solicitor General
+
+cc: See Attached Service List
+
+24-1073 MAXWELL, GHISLAINE USA
+
+> SARA KROPF KROPF MOSELEY SCHMITT PLLC 1100 H STREET, NW SUITE 1220 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-627-6900 SARA@KMLAWFIRM.COM
+
+DAVID OSCAR MARKUS MARKUS, PLLC 40 N.W. 3RD STREET PENTHOUSE ONE MIAMI, FL 33128 305-379-6667 DMARKUS@MARKUSLAW.COM

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822692/EFTA02822692.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822692.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 2,
+  "chars": 1289,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 0.76,
+  "image_assets": [
+    "_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg"
+  ],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "U.S. Department of Justice",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            320.076,
+            33.21
+          ],
+          [
+            464.8320617675781,
+            33.21
+          ],
+          [
+            464.8320617675781,
+            47.9830322265625
+          ],
+          [
+            320.076,
+            47.9830322265625
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            51
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            24
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            12
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            35
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            18
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            3
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822692"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822694/EFTA02822694.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+# In the supreme Court of the Ifriniteb ii§tates
+
+GHISIAINE MAXWELL, PETITIONER
+
+V.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
+
+BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
+
+D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General Counsel of Record MATTHEW R. GALEOTTI Acting Assistant Attorney General ETHAN A. SACHS Attorney Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SuprenteCtBriefs@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217
+
+# QUESTION PRESENTED
+
+Whether petitioner's prosecution for sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) and (b)(2), by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York was prohibited by a nonprosecution agreement between the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and petitioner's coconspirator.
+
+(I)
+
+### TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+|                | Page |
+|----------------|------|
+| Opinions below | 1    |
+| Jurisdiction   | 1    |
+| Statement      | 2    |
+| Argument       | 7    |
+| Conclusion     | 16   |
+
+## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+
+| Cases: Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County,                                                |      |
+|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
+| 563 U.S. 110 (2011) Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal,                                        | 15   |
+| 536 U.S. 73 (2002) City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Servo                           | 11   |
+| Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002) Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill,                                | 11   |
+| 332 U.S. 380 (1947) General Int. Ins. Co. v. Ruggles,                                        | 16   |
+| 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 408 (1827)                                                                | 15   |
+| Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., | 10   |
+| 336 U.S. 271 (1949) Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,                                    | 13   |
+| 568 U.S. 519 (2013)                                                                          | 9    |
+| Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) MargaUi-0lvera v. Immigration & Naturalization         | 13   |
+| Serv., 43 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1994)                                                           | 14   |
+| Frisco v. United States, 562 U.S. 1290 (2011)                                                | 7,14 |
+| Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)                                                  | 8,10 |
+| Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U.S. 305 (1882)                                                  | 14   |
+| 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994)                                                                 | 13   |
+
+| Cases—Continued:                               | Page       |
+|------------------------------------------------|------------|
+| cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 (2000)             | 15         |
+| 771 F2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985)                     | 6, 13, 14  |
+| cert. denied, 417 U.S. 933 (1974)              | 13         |
+| 162 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 1998)                   | 8          |
+| 294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002)                    | 10, 13, 14 |
+| 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1207 (2000)      | 14         |
+| United States v.=, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) | 15         |
+| 995 F.3d 249 (D.C. Cir. 2021)                  | 8          |
+| cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1215 (1996)             | 8, 13, 14  |
+| 556 F.2d 1265 (5th Cir. 1977)                  | 8          |
+| 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996)                   | 13         |
+
+# Statutes and rule:
+
+| Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 35,1 Stat. 92-93 | 7  |
+|---------------------------------------------------|----|
+| 18 U.S.C. 371                                     | 2  |
+| 18 U.S.C. 1591(a)                                 | 2  |
+| 18 U.S.C. 1591(bX2)                               | 2  |
+| 18 U.S.C. 2255 (2006)                             | 12 |
+| 18 U.S.C. 2423(a)                                 | 2  |
+| 28 U.S.C. 547                                     | 10 |
+| Sup. CL R. 10                                     | 12 |
+
+| Miscellaneous:                                    | Page  |
+|---------------------------------------------------|-------|
+| U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual (Feb. 2018) | 5, 10 |
+| The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012)          | 10    |
+
+# 3In the irsupreme Court of the linfteb gi§tatesi
+
+No. 24-1073
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, PETITIONER
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
+
+### BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
+
+### OPINIONS BELOW
+
+The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. la-23a) is reported at 118 F.4th 256. The order of the district court (Pet. App. 52a-91a) is reported at 534 F. Supp. 3d 299.
+
+# JURISDICTION
+
+The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on September 17, 2024. A petition for rehearing was denied on November 25, 2024 (Pet. App. 92a). On January 21, 2025, Justice Sotomayor extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including April 10, 2025, and the petition was filed on that date. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
+
+STATEMENTFollowing a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, petitioner was convicted on one count of conspiring to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371; one count of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(a); and one count of sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1591(a) and (b)(2). Pet. App. 3a, 39a-40a. The district court sentenced petitioner to 240 months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release. *Id.* at 41a-42a. The court of appeals affirmed. *Id.* at 1a-23a.
+
+1. From about 1994 to 2004, petitioner “coordinated, facilitated, and contributed to” the multimillionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of numerous young women and underage girls. Pet. App. 4a. The abuse followed a pattern. Petitioner and Epstein would identify vulnerable girls living under difficult circumstances; isolate them from their friends and families, gaining their trust by giving them gifts and pretending to be their friends; normalize the discussion of sexual topics and sexual touching with the girls; and then “transition[] to sexual abuse, often through the pretext of [a girl] giving Epstein a massage.” Gov’t C.A. Br. 5; see Pet. App. 4a, 94a. Petitioner and Epstein paid victims large amounts of cash to provide Epstein with sexualized massages, and after a victim had begun giving massages, they would offer her additional money to recruit other girls. Gov’t C.A. Br. 5-6.
+
+Petitioner and Epstein carried on those activities at, among other locations, Epstein’s residences in Palm Beach, Florida, and New York City. See Gov’t C.A. Br.
+
+4-12. In 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained to the Palm Beach police after learning that Epstein had paid their daughter for a massage. Pet. App. 94a. The following year, a state grand jury indicted Epstein for soliciting prostitution. *Ibid.* But because the local police "were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach." *Ibid.*
+
+The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (Florida USAO) worked with the FBI "to develop a federal case against Epstein." Pet. App. 94a. "[I]n the course of the investigation, they discovered additional victims." *Ibid.* An Assistant U.S. Attorney drafted a 60-count indictment against Epstein and a "lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence" against him. *Id.* at 94a-95a. In 2007, however, the Florida USAO entered into a written nonprosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein. *Id.* at 5a, 24a-38a.
+
+The NPA began by describing the state and federal investigations into Epstein's conduct and the potential federal charges that the investigation by the Florida USAO and FBI supported. Pet. App. 24a-25a. The agreement noted that Epstein sought "to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability." *Id.* at 25a. It then provided:
+
+[O]n the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for [the federal] offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
+
+*Id.* at 26a.
+
+The NPA further specified that, if Epstein timely fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the agreement, no prosecution against him would “be instituted in this District.” Pet. App. 26a. The NPA then listed 13 terms, which principally required Epstein to plead guilty to two state offenses—soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution—and agree to a sentence of 18 months of imprisonment. *Id.* at 27a-30a. A later provision stated that if Epstein “successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal char[g]es against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to” four of Epstein’s assistants (none of whom was petitioner). *Id.* at 31a; see *id.* at 123a-124a; C.A. App. 178.
+
+Such a coconspirators clause was “‘highly unusual,’” Pet. App. 125a, and “appears to have been added ‘with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors,’” *id.* at 55a (citation omitted). During a later investigation into the Florida USAO’s handling of the Epstein matter, the Assistant U.S. Attorney who handled the case told the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility that she “did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect” anyone other than the four named assistants. *Id.* at 110a; see *id.* at 125a-126a. And other USAO attorneys suggested that the coconspirators clause was “meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims” of Epstein. *Id.* at 125a.
+
+The coconspirators clause is not the only clause that refers to “the United States”; instead, the NPA refers variously to the “the United States Attorney,” “the United States Attorney’s Office,” and “the United
+
+States.” Pet. App. 24a-38a. For example, the NPA provides for “the United States Attorney” to send notice to Epstein if he “should determine, based on reliable evidence,” that Epstein has violated the agreement, and specifies that the notice should be “provided \* \* \* within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach.” *Id.* at 26a.
+
+DOJ policy provided at that time—and similarly provides today—that “[n]o district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.” Pet. App. 10a (citation omitted); see *Justice Manual* § 9-27.641 (Feb. 2018) (current version). The NPA in Epstein’s case was signed by Epstein, his counsel, and—under U.S. Attorney Acosta’s name—the aforementioned Assistant U.S. Attorney. Pet. App. 36a-38a.
+
+In accordance with the NPA, Epstein pleaded guilty to two offenses in Florida state court in 2008. Pet. App. 96a. He was incarcerated for about a year in a minimum-security state facility. *Id.* at 96a-98a. But in 2019, the USAO for the Southern District of New York (New York USAO) obtained an indictment charging Epstein with sex trafficking minors. *Id.* at 100a.
+
+2. In 2020, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment charging petitioner with several offenses arising out of her scheme with Epstein. Pet. App. 52a. A second superseding and ultimately operative indictment charged petitioner with six offenses related to facilitating sexual activity by minors and two counts of perjury. C.A. App. 114-135.
+
+Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the coconspirators clause of Epstein's NPA, see p. 4, *supra*, barred her prosecution because she was charged as Epstein's coconspirator. Pet. App. 55a. The district court denied the motion, finding that the NPA bound only the Florida USAO. *Id.* at 56a-58a. The court further found that most of the charged offenses would have fallen outside the scope of the NPA even if it had applied to the New York USAO. See *id.* at 59a-60a.<sup>1</sup>
+
+Petitioner was tried on the nonperjury counts in 2021, Gov't C.A. Br. 2, and the jury found her guilty on five counts, Pet. App. 39a. The district court entered judgment on three of those counts, dismissed two on multiplicity grounds, and sentenced petitioner to 240 months of imprisonment. *Id.* at 39a-41a.
+
+3. The court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1a-23a. It rejected, among other claims, petitioner's contention that Epstein's NPA barred her prosecution. *Id.* at 8a-12a. The court cited circuit precedent for the proposition that a "plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." *Id.* at 8a (quoting *United States v. Annabi*, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)). And here, the court found, "[n]o-thing in the text of the NPA or its negotiation history suggests that the NPA precluded USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell" for the charged offenses. *Id.* at 12a.
+
+---
+
+<sup>1</sup> The district court did not address whether the two counts that were added between the first and second superseding indictments would have fallen within the scope of the NPA. See D. Ct. Doc. 317, at 2-5 (Aug. 13, 2021).
+
+The court of appeals observed that “[t]he only language in the NPA that speaks to the agreement’s scope is limiting language” referring specifically to the Southern District of Florida. Pet. App. 10a; see *id.* at 9a-10a & n.13 (quoting language in the NPA protecting Epstein from charges “*in this District*”). The court also found no indication that either the Southern District of New York or the Criminal Division had reviewed and approved the NPA, as DOJ policy would have required if the NPA applied to other districts. See *id.* at 10a. And the court recognized that, from the inception of the office in the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 92-93, a U.S. Attorney’s authority had always been “cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.” Pet. App. 12a; see *id.* at 11a-12a & n.18.
+
+#### ARGUMENT
+
+Petitioner renews her contention (Pet. 12-18) that Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida barred petitioner’s prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That contention is incorrect, and petitioner does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals. This case would also be an unsuitable vehicle for addressing the matters raised in the petition for a writ of certiorari. This Court has previously denied certiorari in a case raising a similar claim. See *Prisco v. United States*, 562 U.S. 1290 (2011) (No. 10-7895). It should follow the same course here.
+
+1. The court of appeals correctly held that Epstein’s NPA did not bar petitioner’s prosecution. Pet. App. 8a-12a.
+
+a. Petitioner asserts (Pet. 1) that prosecution for one of her three counts of conviction was barred by a provision of Epstein’s NPA stating, in relevant part, that “the
+
+United States also agrees that it will not institute criminal char[g]es against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to” four of Epstein’s assistants. Pet. App. 31a; see Pet. 3-4. But “[n]onprosecution agreements, like plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law.” *United States v. Castaneda*, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); cf. *Santobello v. New York*, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). And like other contracts, the NPA “must be read as a whole” and in proper context. *United States v. Moreno-Membache*, 995 F.3d 249, 256 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
+
+While “the United States” could conceivably refer to the entire federal government, as petitioner urges, the entirety and context of the NPA here make clear that the term is used—as it often is—as one alternative way to refer to the USAO executing the agreement. See Pet. App. 56a (noting that “the United States” is “common shorthand” for the USAO); *United States v. Trevino*, 556 F.2d 1265, 1271 (5th Cir. 1977) (interpreting “the United States” in a statute to mean “the prosecutorial division of the government”) (emphasis omitted); cf. *United States v. Rourke*, 74 F.3d 802, 807 (7th Cir.) (“within the criminal justice system throughout the country, the term ‘the government’ is widely used and understood to refer to the ‘prosecution,’ or ‘the United States Attorney’”), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1215 (1996). Among other things, the NPA invoked “the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida,” and listed only officials of that USAO in the signature block, Pet. App. 26a; see *id.* at 33a-34a, 36a-38a—showing that the agreement was with the USAO, not the entire DOJ.
+
+While petitioner emphasizes (Pet. 18) the paragraph stating that Epstein sought “to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability,” Pet. App. 25a, even as to “his” federal liability specifically, the agreement by its terms protected him from federal prosecution only “in this District,” *id.* at 26a; see *id.* at 9a (court of appeals observing that “where the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is *expressly limited* to the Southern District of Florida”). The NPA’s coconspirators clause, which “also agrees” to forgo certain prosecution of coconspirators, cannot reasonably be construed as reflecting some “global[]” scope broader than the Florida-based state and federal charges that Epstein resolved for himself. It would be extremely strange if the NPA left Epstein himself open to federal prosecution in another district—as eventually occurred, see p. 5, *supra*—while protecting his coconspirators from prosecution anywhere.
+
+Contrary to petitioner’s claim, such an implausible reading cannot be inferred simply because the coconspirators clause is one of the places where “the United States” is used instead of “the United States Attorney” or “the United States Attorney’s Office.” As noted above, the NPA variously referred to the U.S. Attorney, the USAO, and the United States, and at least some of those uses of “the United States” plainly referred specifically to the USAO. See, *e.g.*, Pet. App. 26a (using terms interchangeably in paragraph on notice); *id.* at 30a (noting that Epstein had “agree[d]” “[a]t the United States’ request” to provide certain information); cf. *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, 568 U.S. 519, 540 (2013) (“different words used in different parts of the same statute [can] mean roughly the same thing”). The term
+
+did not take on some unique broader meaning in the coconspirators' clause. Cf. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, *Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts* 170-173 (2012) (presumption of consistent usage).
+
+Moreover, even if the meaning of the coconspirators clause were not clear in context, extrinsic evidence would resolve the ambiguity against petitioner. See *United States v. Gebbie*, 294 F.3d 540, 551 (3d Cir. 2002). At the time the NPA was negotiated, DOJ policy barred USAOs from entering into NPAs that bound other districts unless they obtained the approval of those districts or the Criminal Division. Pet. App. 10a. That policy reflects the longstanding general rule that a U.S. Attorney's area of responsibility is limited to "his district." 28 U.S.C. 547; see Pet. App. 11a-12a. While petitioner suggests (Pet. 18) that USAOs are instructed to be explicit on that point, they are also instructed to consult with other DOJ components if they intend to altogether foreclose any prosecution by other USAOs. See *Justice Manual* § 9-27.630. And there is no indication here that anyone involved in negotiating Epstein's NPA obtained the necessary approval for binding other USAOs or thought it was necessary. Pet. App. 10a.
+
+b. Petitioner's contrary arguments (Pet. 12-18) lack merit. She invokes general principles that prosecutors should be held to the promises they make, see Pet. 13-14 (discussing *Santobello, supra*, and *Giglio v. United States*, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)), and that "ambiguities in a plea agreement are to be resolved against the government," Pet. 16. But those arguments merely beg the questions of what promises the NPA did make and whether the NPA is ambiguous. As explained above, the NPA's coconspirators clause, read in context, is not
+
+reasonably susceptible to petitioner's broad interpretation.
+
+Petitioner also invokes (Pet. 16-17) the interpretive principle *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*, in arguing that the NPA's "use of narrowing terms as to Epstein protections" from prosecution indicates that the coconspirators clause, which does not contain those terms, was intended to apply to all districts. But the *expressio unius* canon "grows weaker with each difference in the formulation of the provisions under inspection." *City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc.*, 536 U.S. 424, 436 (2002); see *Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal*, 536 U.S. 73, 81 (2002) ("The canon depends on identifying a series of two or more terms or things that should be understood to go hand in hand, which is abridged in circumstances supporting a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded."). And the canon therefore does little work in this case.
+
+The relevant portions of the NPA do not have any sort of parallelism in their wording or structure that would suggest the necessity for identical terminology on this particular point. Compare, *e.g.*, Pet. App. 26a ("prosecution [of Epstein] in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida"), with *id.* at 31a ("the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal char[g]es against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein"). Indeed, as noted above, the phrasing of the coconspirators clause—in which "the United States *also* agrees" to forgo certain prosecution of coconspirators, *id.* at 31a (emphasis added)—plainly uses "the United States" in reference to the entity otherwise making the agreement
+
+(the USAO) and the corresponding geographic limitations of that agreement, as reflected in its promises regarding the prosecution of Epstein himself.
+
+Petitioner's remaining arguments are likewise misplaced. Her effort (Pet. 15-16) to link the coconspirators clause with other NPA provisions addressing potential civil suits under 18 U.S.C. 2255 (2006) is self-defeating, since the latter provisions reinforce the NPA's limitation to the Southern District of Florida. See Pet. App. 28a (providing that "Epstein will not contest the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida" in such suits). Similarly unavailing is petitioner's emphasis (Pet. 17) on language in one draft of the NPA that would have expressly limited the coconspirators' protection to the Southern District of Florida. See Pet. App. 117a. There is no indication that anyone involved in drafting the NPA understood the different versions of the coconspirators clause to have different geographic scopes. See *id.* at 122a-123a; see also *id.* at 125a n.125 (former First Assistant U.S. Attorney telling DOJ investigators that "the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted 'by any other U.S. Attorney's office in the country'") (brackets omitted). As the district court explained, an NPA "need not painstakingly spell out 'the Office of the United States Attorney for Such-and-Such District' in every instance to make clear that it applies only in the district where signed." *Id.* at 56a-57a.
+
+At all events, the case-specific interpretation of a particular NPA is not a matter that warrants this Court's review. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. And that is especially true where "district court and court of appeals are in agreement as to what conclusion the record requires."
+
+*Kyles v. Whitley*, 514 U.S. 419, 456-457 (1995) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing *Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co.*, 336 U.S. 271, 275 (1949)).
+
+2. Petitioner nevertheless urges (Pet. 7-12) the Court to grant a writ of certiorari in this case to resolve asserted disagreement in the courts of appeals over how broadly references to "the United States" or "the government" in a plea agreement should be read. That contention is likewise misplaced.
+
+The Second and Seventh Circuits have stated that a promise regarding a defendant's prosecution on behalf of "the government" or "the United States" by default "binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction." *United States v. Annabi*, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam); see *Rourke*, 74 F.3d at 807 & n.5 (7th Cir.). And in the Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, "when a United States Attorney \* \* \* contracts on behalf of 'the United States' or 'the Government' in a plea agreement for specific crimes, that attorney speaks for and binds all his or her fellow United States Attorneys \* \* \* absent express contractual limitations or disavowals to the contrary." *Gebbie*, 294 F.3d at 550 (3d Cir.); see *United States v. Carter*, 454 F.2d 426, 428 (4th Cir. 1972) (en banc), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 933 (1974); *United States v. Van Thournout*, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996).<sup>2</sup>
+
+---
+
+<sup>2</sup> Petitioner appears to acknowledge (Pet. 10-11) that the Ninth Circuit has not expressly addressed the matter at issue here. In [REDACTED] v. *Immigration & Naturalization Service*, 35 F.3d 1332 (1994), a cooperation agreement "plainly and unambiguously \* \* \* bound the INS," *id.* at 1337, so no need existed to address a more
+
+Any disparity, however, is of limited importance because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement. See *Gebbie*, 294 F.3d at 550 n.4. Accordingly, as the court of appeals cases cited in the petition for a writ of certiorari indicate, cases in which a default inference proves to be dispositive are unlikely to arise frequently. Indeed, several of the cited cases did not themselves require application of any default rule because the scope of the relevant agreement was clear. See, *e.g.*, *Margalli-Olvera v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.*, 43 F.3d 345, 352 (8th Cir. 1994); see also *Rourke*, 74 F.3d at 807. And for the reasons discussed above, this is not itself a case that turns on any default rule.
+
+Even assuming that “the United States” were presumptively a reference to the entire federal government, the scope of the NPA’s coconspirators clause would nonetheless be clear. See Pet. App. 12a (court of appeals finding “[n]othing in the text of the NPA or its negotiation history” to support petitioner’s claim); *id.* at 57a (district court describing petitioner’s reading as “not plausible—let alone ‘affirmatively apparent’”) (quoting *Annabi*, 771 F.2d at 672); pp. 8-12, *supra*. This Court does not grant certiorari to “decide abstract questions of law \* \* \* which, if decided either way, affect no right” of the parties. *Supervisors v. Stanley*, 105 U.S. 305, 311 (1882). And it has declined to do so in the face of a claim similar to petitioner’s. See *Prisco*, 562 U.S. at 1290; Br. in Opp. at 6, *Prisco*, *supra* (No. 10-7895) (explaining that “when read in context, the prosecutor’s
+
+---
+
+general methodological question. The same was true in *United States v. Johnston*, 199 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1207 (2000), where a plea agreement explicitly bound only the USAO. See *id.* at 1021.
+
+reference to ‘the government’ [at a plea hearing] clearly referred to only the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey”).
+
+3. Indeed, this case would be an unsuitable candidate for further review for additional reasons as well. First, unlike the defendants in the cases cited in the petition for certiorari, petitioner was not a party to the relevant agreement; only Epstein and the Florida USAO were parties to the NPA. Even assuming that a third party could assert rights under such an agreement with the government, but see *United States v. [REDACTED]*, 944 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir. 1991) (noting the absence of “authority to that effect”), petitioner could do so here only if “the original parties intended the contract to directly benefit [her] as [a] third part[y],” *United States v. Andreas*, 216 F.3d 645, 663 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1014 (2000); see *Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County*, 563 U.S. 110, 117 (2011). But there is no evidence that the parties to the NPA intended for the coconspirators clause to benefit petitioner. See p. 4, *supra*. The government was not even aware of petitioner’s role in Epstein’s scheme at that time. See Pet. App. 125a-126a.
+
+Second, even if the Florida USAO had purported to bind all other USAOs in the NPA, it would have lacked authority to do so. See *General Int. Ins. Co. v. Ruggles*, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 408, 413 (1827) (“It is a general rule applicable to agencies of every description, that the agent cannot bind his principal, except in matters coming within the scope of his authority.”). Under DOJ policy at the time the Epstein NPA was entered, a USAO could bind other districts in an NPA only if it obtained the approval of those districts or the Criminal Division. Pet. App. 10a. The USAO here did not do so. *Ibid.* And
+
+petitioner cannot make up for the absence of actual authority by invoking principles of estoppel or apparent authority against the government. See Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947). That is particularly true where she is, at most, an incidental thirdparty beneficiary of the agreement.
+
+## CONCLUSION
+
+The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
+
+Respectfully submitted.
+
+D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General MATTHEW R. GALEOITI Acting Assistant Attorney General ETHAN A. SACHS Attorney
+
+JULY 2025

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822694/EFTA02822694.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,958 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822694.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 21,
+  "chars": 30854,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 11.4,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "In the supreme Court of the Ifriniteb ii\u00a7tates",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            153.0,
+            92.34
+          ],
+          [
+            460.85528564453125,
+            92.34
+          ],
+          [
+            460.85528564453125,
+            114.9365234375
+          ],
+          [
+            153.0,
+            114.9365234375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "QUESTION PRESENTED",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            238.06800000000004,
+            70.47
+          ],
+          [
+            373.01678466796875,
+            70.47
+          ],
+          [
+            373.01678466796875,
+            85.36199951171875
+          ],
+          [
+            238.06800000000004,
+            85.36199951171875
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            244.188,
+            71.14501953125
+          ],
+          [
+            367.99066162109375,
+            71.14501953125
+          ],
+          [
+            367.99066162109375,
+            85.23248291015625
+          ],
+          [
+            244.188,
+            85.23248291015625
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            235.00799999999998,
+            185.49
+          ],
+          [
+            376.631103515625,
+            185.49
+          ],
+          [
+            376.631103515625,
+            199.99249267578125
+          ],
+          [
+            235.00799999999998,
+            199.99249267578125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            154.836,
+            93.96000000000001
+          ],
+          [
+            250.92000000000002,
+            93.96000000000001
+          ],
+          [
+            250.92000000000002,
+            106.92
+          ],
+          [
+            154.836,
+            106.92
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "Statutes and rule:",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            154.836,
+            420.39
+          ],
+          [
+            250.6484375,
+            420.39
+          ],
+          [
+            250.6484375,
+            435.7330322265625
+          ],
+          [
+            154.836,
+            435.7330322265625
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "3In the irsupreme Court of the linfteb gi\u00a7tatesi",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            151.776,
+            71.9012451171875
+          ],
+          [
+            458.7757873535156,
+            71.9012451171875
+          ],
+          [
+            458.7757873535156,
+            93.820068359375
+          ],
+          [
+            151.776,
+            93.820068359375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            176.25599999999997,
+            271.35
+          ],
+          [
+            435.38079833984375,
+            271.35
+          ],
+          [
+            435.38079833984375,
+            285.3446044921875
+          ],
+          [
+            176.25599999999997,
+            285.3446044921875
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "OPINIONS BELOW",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            253.98,
+            314.28000000000003
+          ],
+          [
+            357.3541259765625,
+            314.28000000000003
+          ],
+          [
+            357.3541259765625,
+            327.714599609375
+          ],
+          [
+            253.98,
+            327.714599609375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "JURISDICTION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            263.772,
+            389.61
+          ],
+          [
+            347.7166748046875,
+            389.61
+          ],
+          [
+            347.7166748046875,
+            404.5945739746094
+          ],
+          [
+            263.772,
+            404.5945739746094
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "STATEMENT",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 6,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            268.05600000000004,
+            94.77000000000001
+          ],
+          [
+            340.884,
+            94.77000000000001
+          ],
+          [
+            340.884,
+            106.92
+          ],
+          [
+            268.05600000000004,
+            106.92
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "ARGUMENT",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 11,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            270.504,
+            311.85
+          ],
+          [
+            338.43600000000004,
+            311.85
+          ],
+          [
+            338.43600000000004,
+            323.19
+          ],
+          [
+            270.504,
+            323.19
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CONCLUSION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 20,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            266.832,
+            184.68
+          ],
+          [
+            344.5914611816406,
+            184.68
+          ],
+          [
+            344.5914611816406,
+            199.22406005859375
+          ],
+          [
+            266.832,
+            199.22406005859375
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            47
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            22
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            16
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            9
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            67
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            34
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            65
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            33
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            11
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            47
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            25
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            7
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 6,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 7,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 9,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 10,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 11,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 12,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 14,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 15,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 16,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 17,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 18,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 19,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 20,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            34
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            19
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            5
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822694"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822715/EFTA02822715.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, PETITIONER
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+It is hereby certified that all parties required to be served have been served with copies of the BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION, via email and first-class mail, postage prepaid, this I4'h day of July 2025.
+
+[See Attached Service List]
+
+As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 4,178 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.I(d). I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 14, 2025.
+
+> D. John Sauer Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice Washington. D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217
+
+July 14, 2025
+
+Due to the continuing delay in receiving incoming mail at the Department of Justice, in addition to mailing your brief via first-class mail, we would appreciate a fax or email copy of your brief. If that is acceptable to you, please fax your brief to Charlene Goodwin, Supervisor, Case Management, Office of the Solicitor General, at (202) 514-8844, or email at SupremeCtBriefs®USDOJ.gov. Ms. Goodwin's phone number is (202) 514-2217 or 2218. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
+
+24-1073 MAXWELL, GHISLAINE USA
+
+> SARA KROPF KROPF MOSELEY SCHMITT PLLC 1100 H STREET, NW SUITE 1220 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202-627-6900 SARA@XMLAWFIRM.COM
+
+DAVID OSCAR MARKUS MARKUS, PLLC 40 N.W. 3RD STREET PENTHOUSE ONE MIAMI, FL 33128 305-379-6667 DMARKUS@MARKUSLAW.COM VIA EMAIL

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822715/EFTA02822715.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822715.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 2,
+  "chars": 1570,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 0.67,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            162.792,
+            99.63
+          ],
+          [
+            449.32122802734375,
+            99.63
+          ],
+          [
+            449.32122802734375,
+            113.9830322265625
+          ],
+          [
+            162.792,
+            113.9830322265625
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            223.38,
+            237.32999999999998
+          ],
+          [
+            388.8902587890625,
+            237.32999999999998
+          ],
+          [
+            388.8902587890625,
+            251.60302734375
+          ],
+          [
+            223.38,
+            251.60302734375
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            57
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            28
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            9
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            39
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            19
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822715"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822717/EFTA02822717.md

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+# IN THE ipupretne Court of Hy Vaniteb Ottani
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1, Petitioner, V.
+
+> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
+
+On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
+
+### REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
+
+DAVID OSCAR MARKUS Counsel of Record MONA MARKu PLLC 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, FL 33128 (305) 379-6667 dmarkus@markuslaw.com Counsel for Petitioner
+
+July 28, 2025
+
+### TABLE OF CONTENTS
+
+|                                                                                                                                                             | Page |
+|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------|
+| TABLE OF AUTHORITIES                                                                                                                                        | ii   |
+| REASONS FOR GRANTING THE Phi11 ION                                                                                                                          | 1    |
+| I. The government concedes that the circuits are split as to whether a promise on behalf of the "United States" by a United States Attorney's office in one |      |
+| district is binding upon other districts                                                                                                                    | 2    |
+| II. The Second Circuit's decision below is wrong and violates the principles set                                                                            |      |
+| forth in this Court's prior opinions.                                                                                                                       | 4    |
+| the split over this important and                                                                                                                           |      |
+| recurring question.                                                                                                                                         | 11   |
+| CONCLUSION                                                                                                                                                  | 11   |
+
+### TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+
+| CASES                               | Page(s)    |
+|-------------------------------------|------------|
+| 562 U.S. 1290 (2011), No. 10-7895   | 2          |
+| 404 U.S. 257 (1971)                 | 4, 6       |
+| 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994)        | 2          |
+| 216 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2000)        | 10         |
+| 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985)         | 3          |
+| 216 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2000)         | 6          |
+| 853 F.Supp.2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) | 10         |
+| 199 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1999)       | 2          |
+| 118 F.4th 256 (2d. Cir. 2024)       | 2          |
+| Antonin Scalia & Bryan              | A. Garner, |
+| Legal Texts (2012)                  | 5          |
+
+## **REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION**
+
+This case presents a straightforward and important question about the government's obligation to honor its promises in plea and non-prosecution agreements. The petition asks whether a U.S. Attorney's promise made on behalf of "the United States" binds the entire United States. The government's Brief in Opposition only underscores the importance of this question.
+
+Most significantly, the government concedes a circuit split on this issue, effectively admitting that defendants' rights hinge on the happenstance of geography. Opp.13. Such an acknowledged conflict among the circuits demands this Court's intervention.
+
+Rather than grapple with the core principles of plea agreements, the government tries to distract by reciting a lurid and irrelevant account of Jeffrey Epstein's misconduct. But this case is about what the government promised, not what Epstein did.
+
+Even more remarkably, the government advances an interpretation of its non-prosecution agreement that flips its plain meaning on its head. Promising "not to prosecute" somehow meant preserving the right to prosecute. That is not contract interpretation; it is alchemy. Plea agreements are supposed to be strictly construed against the government, yet here the government isn't even asking for the benefit of the doubt; it is asking for a blank check to rewrite its own promise after the fact. The government's only real argument is that the Second Circuit rule is correct on the merits while the other circuits have it wrong. We obviously disagree, but regardless, the Court should grant certiorari so that all circuits employ that same rule.
+
+This circuit split presents an exceptionally important question. Plea and non-prosecution agreements resolve nearly every federal case. They routinely include promises that extend to others—co-conspirators, family members, potential witnesses. If those promises mean different things in different parts of the country, then trust in our system collapses. The Court should grant certiorari and restore consistency, and credibility, to the government's word.
+
+**I. The government concedes that the circuits are split as to whether a promise on behalf of the “United States” by a United States Attorney's office in one district is binding upon other districts.**
+
+The government (like the Second Circuit in the opinion below) agrees that there is a clear circuit split on the precise question posed by this Petition. Opp.13;<sup>1</sup> *United States v. Maxwell*, 118 F.4th 256, 263 n.11 (2d. Cir. 2024) (“recogniz[ing] that circuits have been split on this issue for decades.”). As the Second Circuit noted, this conflict is well-documented and longstanding. Indeed, the government points out that litigants have sought the Court's clarification of this issue at least as far back as 2011, when this Court denied certiorari in *Prisco v. United States*, 562 U.S. 1290 (2011), No. 10-7895.
+
+---
+
+<sup>1</sup> The United States argues that the split is 3-2 in favor of Petitioner, not 4-2, claiming that that the “Ninth Circuit has not expressly addressed the matter at issue here.” Opp.13. While not express, the Ninth Circuit is pretty clear that it agrees with Petitioner's position, holding that a U.S. Attorney can bind other districts and agencies, [REDACTED] *v. INS*, 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994), and when in doubt, “the government must bear responsibility for any lack of clarity in those terms,” *United States v. Johnston*, 199 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 1999).
+
+The government seeks to minimize the split as of “limited importance” because “the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement.” Opp.14. This turns a blind eye to the problem. The very premise of Petitioner’s argument is that the parties to the NPA *did* seek to control the scope of the relevant clauses by narrowing the scope of immunity for Epstein through the use of narrow language specifying enforceability only in the Southern District of Florida, and then expanding the scope of it as to his co-conspirators by using the broad term “the United States.” (App. 30-31). While doing so, Epstein’s lawyers were no doubt informed by how that language was interpreted in the jurisdiction in which they were practicing.
+
+Yet by definition, the issue presented in this case and every other like it *only* arises when the language in question is being interpreted in a *different* jurisdiction than the one where the agreement was negotiated. Accordingly, uniformity in interpretation of such a provision is unusually and particularly compelling. The very nature of a clause of this nature (unlike most other clauses in an agreement, which are not cross-jurisdictional in nature) cries out for nationwide symmetry.
+
+The government also contends, rather bizarrely, that “this is not itself a case that turns on any default rule.” Opp.14. To the contrary, it is *precisely* the Second Circuit’s default rule, adopted in *United States v. Annabi*, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), that doomed Petitioner to stand trial on a case that would have been dismissed outright in at least half the country. The primary reason this Court should grant certiorari is to create one single default rule across the country as to
+
+what parties mean when they use the term “the United States” without further qualification.
+
+**II. The Second Circuit’s decision below is wrong and violates the principles set forth in this Court’s prior opinions.**
+
+In attempting to defend the Second Circuit’s outcome, the government advances a series of contentions about the Epstein NPA’s scope, the U.S. Attorney’s authority, contract law doctrines, and canons of construction. Each lacks merit.
+
+As the government acknowledges, Opp.8, the starting point in any contract is the text. Here, the text could not be more clear. In exchange for Epstein’s guilty plea and other penalties and concessions, “the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any **potential** co-conspirators of Epstein, **including but not limited to** [four names].” (emphasis added).
+
+This promise is unqualified. It is not geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida, it is not conditioned on the co-conspirators being known by the government at the time, it does not depend on what any particular government attorney may have had in his or her head about who might be a co-conspirator, and it contains no other caveat or exception. This should be the end of the discussion. *See Santobello v. New York*, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.”) (ignored by the government in its opposition).
+
+The government seeks to evade this straightforward language by focusing on other clauses in the NPA and on extrinsic context, Opp.8-10, but its efforts only
+
+underscore that the plain meaning favors Petitioner. First, the government notes (as did the Second Circuit) that the NPA explicitly limited Epstein's own immunity to the Southern District of Florida, pointing to a clause stating that after Epstein fulfilled the agreement, "no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement... will be instituted *in this District*." (App. 26a). The government then urges the Court to follow it through the looking [REDACTED], offering the inexplicable suggestion that the absence of a similar "in this District" qualifier in the co-conspirator clause should be ignored as immaterial. Opp.9.
+
+Of course, basic interpretive canons point in exactly the opposite direction. When parties include an express territorial limitation in one clause of a contract and omit it in another, the omission must be presumed intentional. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012). As Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner have explained, "a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning." *Id.* at 170. Here, the drafters knew how to confine the promise to a single district – they did so for Epstein's personal non-prosecution assurance. Yet when it came to Epstein's "potential co-conspirators," the drafters chose broad, unqualified language. In fact, not only did the parties use an unrestricted jurisdictional clause for the co-conspirators, they amended the document from a previous draft in which the co-conspirator immunity was limited to the Southern District of Florida, changing it to refer more broadly to the "United States." (Pet. 3; App. 95, 108-126).
+
+The government's interpretation cannot be correct because it would render superfluous the phrase "in this District" in the Epstein clause. If the "United States" means just the Southern District of Florida,
+
+why specify the district for Epstein? The only logical inference is that the co-conspirator promise was meant to reach more broadly, in line with its different phrasing.<sup>2</sup> At the *very* least there is a textual ambiguity, and under *Santobello* and the contract interpretation principle *contra proferentum*, such ambiguity must be construed against the government as the drafter and promisor. *See, e.g., United States v. Carmichael*, 216 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[W]e ‘construe plea agreements strictly against the Government.’”) (internal citation omitted); OPR report (“OPR”) at 80, 166 (confirming that AUSA wrote the specific language in question). Under any normal reading of this contract, then, no federal charges can be brought against any co-conspirator in any district in the United States.
+
+Reading the NPA “as a whole” means giving effect to the deliberate difference in phrasing between the Epstein-focused clause and the co-conspirator clause.<sup>3</sup>
+
+---
+
+<sup>2</sup> It is not, as the government contends, “extremely strange” for Epstein to have secured broader immunity for his co-conspirators than he was getting for himself, Opp.9. Defendants always try to get as many benefits in a plea agreement as they can – here, Epstein was able to obtain an additional benefit for his co-conspirators that he was unable to secure for himself, no doubt because the government attorneys “wouldn’t have been interested in prosecuting anyone else.” OPR:70; *see also* OPR:80, 168. Epstein “wanted to make sure that he’s the only one who takes the blame for what happened.” OPR:167 (internal quotation omitted). In addition, Epstein was concerned that if a co-conspirator was charged elsewhere, he might be called to testify, opening him up to potential charges in a different part of the country. This was antithetical to the global resolution Epstein sought.
+
+<sup>3</sup> The government is right about one thing: the scope of a particular agreement *is* under the control of the parties. Opp.14. As the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers observes in its *amicus* brief, federal prosecutors know well how to draft
+
+It means recognizing that when the parties intended to mean “only in the Southern District of Florida,” they said so explicitly, and that their use of the all-encompassing term “the United States” in the co-conspirator clause was purposeful.
+
+The government’s invocation of “context” and the purported purpose of the NPA is no more persuasive. The government suggests that a broad grant of immunity cannot have been made because there was no consultation with the Southern District of New York. Opp.10. The record does not permit such a conclusion, as the district court denied a hearing and the Petitioner was not granted any discovery, so there is no way to confirm who was consulted. But the record is clear in any event that the NPA was signed on behalf of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, who was heavily involved in the negotiation and approval process. In addition, representatives of the Department of Justice were also actively involved in the drafting and approval process, including the Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department’s Criminal Division. OPR:27, 28, 84.
+
+If these officials failed to do what their internal policy suggested was appropriate, it is irrelevant. The provision in the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual advising U.S. Attorneys not to bind other districts was relevant in OPR’s review of the government attorneys’ actions in this case. It does not inform the outcome here, however, despite the government’s heavy reliance on it
+
+---
+
+agreements to limit their scope when that is what they intend, and the burden is on them to be specific. When they decline to use simple narrowing terms, this Court should make clear that the broad language they use will be given its ordinary meaning.
+
+throughout its brief. What a prosecutor *should* have done is not relevant; whether or not the Southern District of Florida *should* have prohibited the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell, it clearly did so.
+
+Nor can the government's appeal to context exclude Petitioner from the clear "including but not limited to" language which unmistakably signaled an intent to cover *all* "potential coconspirators," not just those who were specifically named. Indeed, the broad "including but not limited to" clause shows the parties contemplated both known and unknown accomplices, and it was the government who drafted in the "final broad language," intentionally declining to further enumerate individuals. OPR:70,166. The purpose was to assure Epstein that pleading guilty would protect all his associates from federal prosecution<sup>4</sup> – effectively "closing" the federal case completely.<sup>5</sup> That purpose is perfectly consistent with the plain text; it is the government's after-the-fact spin that is inconsistent,
+
+---
+
+<sup>4</sup> The government cherry picks snippets of testimony from the OPR report, many of which are inconsistent with other statements from the same government attorneys, or which offer the perspective of those who admitted to unclear memories, or who were on vacation or otherwise disengaged at the relevant time. App.108, OPR: 36-37. There was a lengthy back-and-forth negotiating process to the inclusion of this clause, some of it recorded by the OPR report, some not. *See* OPR:36. None of this is relevant; the document says what it says in plain language, so the after-the-fact and self-serving statements of various participants to the process should be ignored.
+
+<sup>5</sup> The OPR is riddled with statements reflecting that the government was very concerned about the strength of its case, that it had doubts it would result in a guilty verdict, and that many of the alleged victims did not want any aspect of the case to go to trial. *See, e.g.*, OPR:28, 29, 36, 37, 14, 147.
+
+attempting to import unwritten limits that the dealmakers did not include.
+
+The government's argument, across the board, is essentially an appeal to what it wishes the agreement had said, rather than what it actually says. Of course, if wishful thinking were the standard, the whole NPA would have been thrown out long ago. The government has spent years lamenting that agreement, and initiated a massive OPR investigation into its execution which resulted in OPR's conclusion that the attorneys who negotiated it on behalf of the government did many things contrary to internal government policy and typical practice. (App.55) (district court order noting OPR's findings that the NPA was "unusual in many respects, including its breadth, leniency, and secrecy."); *see also, e.g.*, App. 99.
+
+The entire co-conspirator provision itself (putting aside the issue of the jurisdiction(s) in which it is enforceable) was, according to OPR, unusual for such an agreement (App. 125). But, as the *amicus* notes, the fact that the deal was unconventional does not license the government (or the courts) to rewrite it to conform to ordinary or preferred governmental practice. Amicus Br. 5. To the contrary, it underscores that Epstein's negotiators sought, and obtained, an expansive guarantee.
+
+The government also suggests that Petitioner is not entitled to enforce the NPA because she was not a party to it and was not named in it. Opp.15. But as the court below recognized and as hornbook contract law dictates, Maxwell has standing to enforce the agreement as a third party beneficiary. App.10. Petitioner falls squarely within the class of persons – "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein" – that the NPA expressly protected. She is therefore an intended beneficiary of the agreement, and she has standing to enforce it.
+
+*See, e.g., United States v. Andreas*, 216 F.3d 645, 663 (7th Cir. 2000) (providing that individuals who are not parties to a plea agreement may enforce it, like other third-party beneficiaries, when the original parties intended the contract to directly benefit them as third parties).
+
+Petitioner's alleged status as Epstein's co-conspirator was the entire basis of her prosecution. The NPA's language demonstrates that the parties anticipated that there were additional co-conspirators beyond those already known. By using "including but not limited to" before naming some individuals, the government knowingly extended the benefit of the bargain to other unnamed individuals who participated in Epstein's offenses. Whether the government attorneys personally knew the identities of every such person is beside the point; they certainly knew there could be others (hence the language). Ghislaine Maxwell's name was well known to Epstein's circle and was referenced in public reporting at the time of the NPA. But even if she had been entirely unknown, the broad language of the NPA evidences an intent to cover whoever might later be deemed a co-conspirator. Accordingly, Petitioner can rely on the immunity clause in the NPA. *See, e.g., United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways*, 853 F.Supp.2d 1209, 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing indictment against employee who fell within the class of employees described in plea agreement).
+
+The government's suggestion that it would have drafted the agreement differently had it specifically had Petitioner in mind is both unprovable and irrelevant. If anything, the inclusion of specific names alongside a general category shows the parties knew some of the players and also wanted to cover any
+
+others to prevent any federal prosecution of Epstein's circle. Whether or not this was wise, it was the deal, and Petitioner is entitled to enforce it.
+
+### III. This case is an ideal vehicle for resolving the split over this important and recurring question.
+
+It is hard to imagine a more compelling scenario for this Court's review: for decades now, the same federal promise has yielded opposite results in different jurisdictions, undermining the uniformity of federal law and the integrity of plea bargains nationwide. This Court's review is warranted.
+
+## CONCLUSION
+
+For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the petition for certiorari.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+DAVID OSCAR MARKUS Counsel of Record MONA MARKUS MARKUS= PLLC 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, FL 33128 (305) 379-6667 dmarkus@markuslaw.com Counsel for Petitioner
+
+July 28, 2025

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822717/EFTA02822717.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,660 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822717.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 14,
+  "chars": 22390,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 10.26,
+  "image_assets": [],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "IN THE \nipupretne Court of Hy Vaniteb Ottani",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            169.524,
+            152.28
+          ],
+          [
+            443.78436279296875,
+            152.28
+          ],
+          [
+            443.78436279296875,
+            194.52978515625
+          ],
+          [
+            169.524,
+            194.52978515625
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "REPLY IN SUPPORT OF \nPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            178.704,
+            407.43
+          ],
+          [
+            434.35662841796875,
+            407.43
+          ],
+          [
+            434.35662841796875,
+            438.2419738769531
+          ],
+          [
+            178.704,
+            438.2419738769531
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            235.00799999999998,
+            139.32
+          ],
+          [
+            378.1310119628906,
+            139.32
+          ],
+          [
+            378.1310119628906,
+            155.12200927734375
+          ],
+          [
+            235.00799999999998,
+            155.12200927734375
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "TABLE OF AUTHORITIES",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            225.216,
+            139.32
+          ],
+          [
+            387.09539794921875,
+            139.32
+          ],
+          [
+            387.09539794921875,
+            154.74200439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            225.216,
+            154.74200439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            165.85200000000003,
+            139.32
+          ],
+          [
+            444.31199999999995,
+            139.32
+          ],
+          [
+            444.31199999999995,
+            153.09
+          ],
+          [
+            165.85200000000003,
+            153.09
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "I. The government concedes that the circuits are split as to whether a promise on behalf of the \u201cUnited States\u201d by a United States Attorney's office in one district is binding upon other districts.",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            153.612,
+            272.15999999999997
+          ],
+          [
+            457.77600000000007,
+            272.15999999999997
+          ],
+          [
+            457.77600000000007,
+            342.63
+          ],
+          [
+            153.612,
+            342.63
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "II. The Second Circuit\u2019s decision below is wrong and violates the principles set forth in this Court\u2019s prior opinions.",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 6,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            153.612,
+            175.76999999999998
+          ],
+          [
+            457.164,
+            175.76999999999998
+          ],
+          [
+            457.164,
+            217.89000000000004
+          ],
+          [
+            153.612,
+            217.89000000000004
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "III. This case is an ideal vehicle for resolving \nthe split over this important and recurring \nquestion.",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            153.612,
+            189.54000000000002
+          ],
+          [
+            460.6756286621094,
+            189.54000000000002
+          ],
+          [
+            460.6756286621094,
+            234.24200439453125
+          ],
+          [
+            153.612,
+            234.24200439453125
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CONCLUSION",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            257.652,
+            330.48
+          ],
+          [
+            355.4689025878906,
+            330.48
+          ],
+          [
+            355.4689025878906,
+            347.1219787597656
+          ],
+          [
+            257.652,
+            347.1219787597656
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            56
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            5
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 1,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            35
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            18
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 2,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            51
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            26
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "TableOfContents",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 3,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 4,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 5,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 6,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            10
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 7,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 8,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 9,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 10,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "Footnote",
+            4
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 11,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            8
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 12,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      },
+      {
+        "page_id": 13,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            57
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            29
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            6
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            1
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822717"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822731/EFTA02822731.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+![](_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg)
+
+Web Site: www.wilsonepes.com
+
+No. 24-1073
+
+> Tel (202) 789-0096 Fax (202) 842-4896
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
+
+Petitioner,
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+
+AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
+
+Respondent.
+
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 28, 2025, three (3) copies of the REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the above-captioned case were served, as required by U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.5(c), on the following:
+
+D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-2217
+
+Counsel for United States of America
+
+The following email addresses have also been served electronically:
+
+supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov dmarkus@markuslaw.com
+
+PO
+
+ROBYN DORSEY WILLIS WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. 1115 H Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 789-0096
+
+Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of July
+
+![](_page_0_Picture_23.jpeg)
+
+025.
+
+AZA S NDER DONNER NOTARY PUBLIC District of Columbia

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822731/EFTA02822731.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822731.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 1,
+  "chars": 998,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 1.14,
+  "image_assets": [
+    "_page_0_Picture_0.jpeg",
+    "_page_0_Picture_23.jpeg"
+  ],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            115
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            50
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            22
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822731"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822732/EFTA02822732.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+IN THE  
+**Supreme Court of the United States**
+
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,  
+*Petitioner*,  
+v.  
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
+*Respondent*.
+
+**On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the  
+United States Court of Appeals  
+for the Second Circuit**
+
+**REPLY IN SUPPORT OF  
+PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI**
+
+**CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE**
+
+As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 2,978 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).
+
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+
+Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of July 2025.
+
+![]()AZA SALINDER DONNER  
+NOTARY PUBLIC  
+District of Columbia
+
+My commission expires April 30, 2029.
+
+![](_page_0_Picture_99.jpeg)

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822732/EFTA02822732.metadata.json

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+{
+  "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822732.pdf",
+  "engine": {
+    "marker_major": "2",
+    "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+    "mode": "balanced",
+    "use_llm": false,
+    "force_ocr": false,
+    "disable_ocr": false,
+    "output_format": "markdown",
+    "preserve_source": false
+  },
+  "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+  "pages": 1,
+  "chars": 803,
+  "elapsed_seconds": 3.84,
+  "image_assets": [
+    "_page_0_Picture_99.jpeg"
+  ],
+  "marker_metadata": {
+    "table_of_contents": [
+      {
+        "title": "IN THE Supreme Court of the United States",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            172.58399999999997,
+            104.49
+          ],
+          [
+            443.08799999999997,
+            104.49
+          ],
+          [
+            443.08799999999997,
+            141.75
+          ],
+          [
+            172.58399999999997,
+            141.75
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            180.54,
+            375.84000000000003
+          ],
+          [
+            435.13199999999995,
+            375.84000000000003
+          ],
+          [
+            435.13199999999995,
+            402.57
+          ],
+          [
+            180.54,
+            402.57
+          ]
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "title": "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE",
+        "heading_level": null,
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "polygon": [
+          [
+            200.124,
+            447.93
+          ],
+          [
+            414.93600000000004,
+            447.93
+          ],
+          [
+            414.93600000000004,
+            460.89
+          ],
+          [
+            200.124,
+            460.89
+          ]
+        ]
+      }
+    ],
+    "page_stats": [
+      {
+        "page_id": 0,
+        "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+        "block_counts": [
+          [
+            "Span",
+            47
+          ],
+          [
+            "Line",
+            24
+          ],
+          [
+            "Text",
+            18
+          ],
+          [
+            "SectionHeader",
+            5
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageHeader",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Picture",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "PageFooter",
+            2
+          ],
+          [
+            "Caption",
+            1
+          ]
+        ],
+        "block_metadata": {
+          "llm_request_count": 0,
+          "llm_error_count": 0,
+          "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+          "previous_text": "",
+          "previous_type": "",
+          "previous_order": 0
+        }
+      }
+    ],
+    "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA02822732"
+  }
+}

marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/ocr-manifest.json

@@ -0,0 +1,456 @@
+{
+  "source_dir": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us",
+  "output_dir": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us",
+  "created_at": "2026-09-18T03:57:29.306294+00:00",
+  "updated_at": "2026-09-18T04:57:43.797672+00:00",
+  "tasks": {
+    "8c81c7ab56031fe0f2f1731229fe22ceb3d78380b9439db44050964cc490ba87": {
+      "sha": "8c81c7ab56031fe0f2f1731229fe22ceb3d78380b9439db44050964cc490ba87",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822476.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822476.pdf",
+      "size": 55878,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 1,
+      "chars": 760,
+      "elapsed": 1.0374897950096056,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822476/EFTA02822476.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "8a72215c2127df167b5633d23c8d8b74c690161df0f67fd1115436f6b4d52a3e": {
+      "sha": "8a72215c2127df167b5633d23c8d8b74c690161df0f67fd1115436f6b4d52a3e",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822477.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822477.pdf",
+      "size": 2777005,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 27,
+      "chars": 40040,
+      "elapsed": 6.968865300994366,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822477/EFTA02822477.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "4b78a95d6e8db362b5a568bef979b49d6c24699561cdd9b9addaac11b6e169e9": {
+      "sha": "4b78a95d6e8db362b5a568bef979b49d6c24699561cdd9b9addaac11b6e169e9",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822504.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822504.pdf",
+      "size": 205810,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 3,
+      "chars": 2994,
+      "elapsed": 0.9088567760773003,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822504/EFTA02822504.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "40f10eb67378dcb12b0bef48ef0e43a52fa3e57a7bf7b92b0a3e1698379fbfa7": {
+      "sha": "40f10eb67378dcb12b0bef48ef0e43a52fa3e57a7bf7b92b0a3e1698379fbfa7",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822507.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822507.pdf",
+      "size": 103378,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 1,
+      "chars": 1026,
+      "elapsed": 5.574519153102301,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822507/EFTA02822507.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "56fc8e33a632d4c4e553c6c5ef5cec6086198fcd56de1c493b03325fb49acf65": {
+      "sha": "56fc8e33a632d4c4e553c6c5ef5cec6086198fcd56de1c493b03325fb49acf65",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822508.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822508.pdf",
+      "size": 86186,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 1,
+      "chars": 763,
+      "elapsed": 143.09561618999578,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822508/EFTA02822508.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "fd7b037f79898f22300bc25128f5d3805600eb9b8853f5a8d30c285d9ee13ee5": {
+      "sha": "fd7b037f79898f22300bc25128f5d3805600eb9b8853f5a8d30c285d9ee13ee5",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822509.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822509.pdf",
+      "size": 16478703,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 159,
+      "chars": 251700,
+      "elapsed": 80.60802204697393,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822509/EFTA02822509.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "a9f375bc711fa73ead4e13969a761e8d9d735719f9ca22649479e7b4a388b5cd": {
+      "sha": "a9f375bc711fa73ead4e13969a761e8d9d735719f9ca22649479e7b4a388b5cd",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822668.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822668.pdf",
+      "size": 91032,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 2,
+      "chars": 1209,
+      "elapsed": 0.7440177189419046,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822668/EFTA02822668.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "07dda9e6b245ae0fb0b0230bbd7b3a336373600f141169ee612dd49493a65c69": {
+      "sha": "07dda9e6b245ae0fb0b0230bbd7b3a336373600f141169ee612dd49493a65c69",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822670.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822670.pdf",
+      "size": 1651091,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 19,
+      "chars": 26732,
+      "elapsed": 10.077338717062958,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822670/EFTA02822670.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "91b10a319388cf615372c3590faa4d7f7b5bfae7b46b8424949ee94252b1580e": {
+      "sha": "91b10a319388cf615372c3590faa4d7f7b5bfae7b46b8424949ee94252b1580e",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822689.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822689.pdf",
+      "size": 62213,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 1,
+      "chars": 704,
+      "elapsed": 3.9627990000881255,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822689/EFTA02822689.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "a36619ede535f52d460859564153e770aabbac1cc51a9f71d1b235a5e0e5be47": {
+      "sha": "a36619ede535f52d460859564153e770aabbac1cc51a9f71d1b235a5e0e5be47",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822690.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822690.pdf",
+      "size": 149739,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 2,
+      "chars": 1933,
+      "elapsed": 4.079420350026339,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822690/EFTA02822690.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "90f57a80770c54ff268e43385ac2e207cb7dc308e10b650365dc4e1b4d3667e9": {
+      "sha": "90f57a80770c54ff268e43385ac2e207cb7dc308e10b650365dc4e1b4d3667e9",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822692.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822692.pdf",
+      "size": 97706,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 2,
+      "chars": 1289,
+      "elapsed": 0.759121451061219,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822692/EFTA02822692.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "e856e7012ced51842683175f729ae360afe1e2d550b43281c1f22534ba4aab5b": {
+      "sha": "e856e7012ced51842683175f729ae360afe1e2d550b43281c1f22534ba4aab5b",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822694.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822694.pdf",
+      "size": 2005893,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 21,
+      "chars": 30854,
+      "elapsed": 11.401866207947023,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822694/EFTA02822694.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "2a8a4d1f39207f2cd9fd3fc89ca03a83e67574759f1c68edb342a682d9d171a5": {
+      "sha": "2a8a4d1f39207f2cd9fd3fc89ca03a83e67574759f1c68edb342a682d9d171a5",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822715.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822715.pdf",
+      "size": 116108,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 2,
+      "chars": 1570,
+      "elapsed": 0.6672759150387719,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822715/EFTA02822715.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "5b7db32aac793fd24a5e452988d6b884cb5c7df767bc8eaa6446331b2bf59233": {
+      "sha": "5b7db32aac793fd24a5e452988d6b884cb5c7df767bc8eaa6446331b2bf59233",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822717.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822717.pdf",
+      "size": 1401481,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 14,
+      "chars": 22390,
+      "elapsed": 10.262027601944283,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822717/EFTA02822717.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "458986ee3e03adc504902238cee3970023484bd32c4cda1bc1de5f32a18dbd22": {
+      "sha": "458986ee3e03adc504902238cee3970023484bd32c4cda1bc1de5f32a18dbd22",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822731.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822731.pdf",
+      "size": 105559,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 1,
+      "chars": 998,
+      "elapsed": 1.139983004075475,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822731/EFTA02822731.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    },
+    "5d5fdc70e7a4212961b17775308329536e296f29ddf1b6225acc83c2ef27abe3": {
+      "sha": "5d5fdc70e7a4212961b17775308329536e296f29ddf1b6225acc83c2ef27abe3",
+      "path": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822732.pdf",
+      "name": "EFTA02822732.pdf",
+      "size": 86493,
+      "status": "done",
+      "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+      "engine": {
+        "marker_major": "2",
+        "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+        "mode": "balanced",
+        "use_llm": false,
+        "force_ocr": false,
+        "disable_ocr": false,
+        "output_format": "markdown",
+        "preserve_source": false
+      },
+      "worker": null,
+      "claimed_at": null,
+      "pages": 1,
+      "chars": 803,
+      "elapsed": 3.836594062973745,
+      "output": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/ocr-marker2/court-maxwell-v-us/EFTA02822732/EFTA02822732.md",
+      "error": "",
+      "backend": "local",
+      "attempts": 1,
+      "warnings": []
+    }
+  }
+}