CEOS abuse of discretion review is likely flawed as well. Moreover, although the USAO expected, and personally promised to us, an independent review, FAUSA Sloman’s letter also makes clear that our pivotal legal challenge to the use of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) had already “been previously raised and thoroughly conside

e Petite Policy, convinced the state prosecutors to impose a more severe punishment than the state believed was appropriate under the circumstances. FAUSA Sloman’s version of the history with respect to the sentence he required Mr. Epstein’s lawyers to seek from the State contradicts his later assertion, which i

of her live-in boyfriend to serve as an attorney- representative for the women involved in this case. It also bears mentioning that actions taken by FAUSA Sloman present an appearance of impropriety that gives us cause for concern. Mr. Sloman’s former law partner is currently pursuing a handful of $50-million

Assistant Jeffrey H. Sloman that this postponement “ will not affect when Epstein begins serving his sentence.” Correspondence from Jay Lefkowitz to FAUSA Sloman dated November 8, 2007 (“the judge has invited the parties to appear for the plea and sentencing on January 4", we do not anticipate any delay beyond