DOJ-OGR-00021249.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 77, 06/29/2023, 3536038, Page/7/ of 258 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 204-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 75 of 348 Villafafia, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafafia “shocked and stunned.” Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he strongly disputed Villafafia’s description of events, asserting that it would have been “directly at odds with his management style” to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta’s decision, and leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had “decided and endorsed this resolution at some point,” but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision at the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menchel’s relaying of that decision, he said it “would have been consistent with” his decision for Menchel to do so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recalled attending a meeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, together with Villafafia, Lourie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the Epstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI insisted that Epstein be registered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated for waiting until the court had ruled on the USAO’s ability to obtain Epstein’s computer equipment. Regardless of exactly how Acosta’s decision regarding the two-year term was communicated to Villafafia and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a resolution that included a two-year term of imprisonment, as he acknowledged. De The Subjects’ Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration Villafafia asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two-year term before the decision was made.”” Villafafia told OPR that she had worked hard to develop a strong case, and none of her supervisors had identified to her any specific problem with the case that, in her view, explained the decision to extend an offer for a two-year sentence. Villafafia also told OPR that Menchel provided no explanation for this decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting, and Villafafia did not ask for an explanation because she accepted his statement that it was Acosta’s decision. Villafafia described the proposal as “random,” and told OPR, “[W]e’re all [sentencing] guidelines people, so 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There’s no way to get to 24 months with this set of offenses.”°° 78 OPR notes that Villafafia did not appear hesitant to send emails to her supervisors setting forth her views and objections, and there is no reference before this meeting in any of her emails indicating that a decision had been made to offer a two-year term of incarceration. Therefore, given that a meeting had been arranged involving Menchel and Villatfafia, and possibly most of the other primary USAO and FBI participants, it seems logical that Acosta made a decision to resolve the case with a two-year state plea not long before the meeting. a OPR found no evidence in the documentary record indicating that Villafafia had knowledge of Acosta’s decision or the two-year term before the July 26, 2007 meeting at which she said she learned of it. ad From the time the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987, they have been the mechanism for calculating federal criminal sentences. Since 2005, the Guidelines have been non-binding, but the federal courts are required to consider them. As noted in the commentary to USAM § 9-27.710, 49 DOJ-OGR-00021249