EFTA00231917

Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non-party 
, a 
victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, 
seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pursuant 
to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d)(5) (A-10). 
alleged that the 
proper procedures had not been followed in sealing the documents (A-10). 
claimed these documents are relevant to her civil action against Mr. Epstein; that she, 
as a member of the public, has a right to have them unsealed; and that continued 
sealing violates public policy (A-10). 
On June 1, 2009, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("The 
Post") moved in the state criminal action to intervene and access the non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum (A-11). The Post alleged that the procedures for sealing had 
not been followed and that "good cause exists for unsealing the documents because of 
their public significance." (A-11:3). 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath heard M's and The Post's 
motions in the state criminal action on June 10, 2009 (A-13). The court granted both 
motions to intervene, but deferred ruling on the motions to unseal pending a later 
hearing (A-13). 
5 
EFTA00232257

The next day, June 11, 2009, Mr. Epstein filed a Motion to Make Court Records 
Confidential (A-13). 
Mr. Epstein alleged that the documents should remain 
confidential to prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly 
administration of justice; to protect a compelling government interest; to avoid 
substantial injury to innocent third parties; and to avoid substantial injury to a party by 
disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally 
inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed (A-13). 
Also on June 11, non-party ■. filed motions to intervene and for an order 
unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties 
. and The Palm 
Beach Post (A-12). 
Judge Colbath heard M.'s, The Post's, and M's motions to unseal and Mr. 
Epstein's motion for confidentiality on June 25, 2009 (A-16). The court granted 
M's, The Post's, and M's motions and denied Mr. Eptsein's (A-16:2). The court 
concluded: 
At the time the State court took these matters under seal, the 
proper procedure for sealing such documents had not been 
followed. 
Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. 
Government nor Mr. Epstein have [sic] presented sufficient 
evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held 
by the Court. 
(A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be interpreted as 
6 
EFTA00232258

permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." 
(A-16:3). Subsequent to this oral ruling, Mr. Epstein provided the court with a Motion 
to Stay (A-14). The court stayed disclosure until it could hear Mr. Epstein's motion to 
stay, scheduled for the next day (A-16:3). 
The court heard Mr. Epstein's stay motion on June 26, 2009 (A-19). Mr. 
Epstein alleged that he will be irreparably harmed by disclosure of the non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum (A-14). No harm will be done if the documents remain 
under seal pending review by this Court (A-14). The court denied the motion, but 
stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, so Mr. Epstein could seek emergency 
review of the denial in this Court (A-17). 
ARGUMENT 
Whether to grant a stay is discretionary with the trial court. See Pabian v. 
Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Factors courts consider in deciding 
whether to grant a stay pending appellate proceedings include the likelihood of success 
on the merits, the likelihood of harm if not stay is granted, and the remedial quality of 
any such harm. See Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389, 391 n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see 
also State ex rel. Price v. McCord, 380 So. 2d 1037, 1038 n.3 (Fla. 1980). The trial 
court agreed that Mr. Epstein had established irreparable harm (A-17:16), denied a 
7 
EFTA00232259

stay. 
The trial court abused its discretion by denying a stay. As set forth in the 
contemporaneously filed petition for certiorari, Mr. Epstein will likely succeed on the 
merits. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the 
motions to unseal the confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum 
between the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein. 
These documents are subject to confidentiality provisions, which the federal 
court recognized and enforced when it permitted disclosure to the attorneys for Jane 
Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not 
disclose the terms to anyone else. Disclosure violates a condition of the agreement, 
thereby vitiating the agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney. 
Disclosure also violates Judge Marra's two orders in the federal district court, denying 
disclosure to the parties. Judge Colbath paid lip service to this principle in stating that 
his "Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District 
Court Kenneth Marra's previous Orders." (A-16:3). But there is no way disclosure 
does not inherently violate Judge Marra's orders. 
The principle of supremacy required that the state court defer to the federal court 
8 
EFTA00232260

on this issue. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8. These documents reference federal grand jury 
proceedings, which are protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)--an 
attorney for the government "must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand 
jury." As a consequence of the confidentiality provisions of the non-prosecution 
agreement, information that disclosed the existence and the subject matter of a federal 
grand jury proceeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 
6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the 
United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. 
Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal 
court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal grand jury proceedings. See 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(F), (G). Judge Colbath did not address this principle. Nor did 
Judge Colbath address the principle of comity, which required that the state court defer 
to the federal court, which has twice denied disclosure to third parties, on this issue. 
The court erred in concluding that the non-prosecution and agreement were not 
properly sealed. The non-parties filed their motions to unseal pursuant to Florida Rule 
of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (A-10, A-11, A-12). They alleged that Judge 
Pucillo failed to properly seal the documents under the procedure set forth in that rule 
(Id.). By its terms, however, the procedures for sealing in Rule 2.420(d) (titled, 
"Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records in Non-Criminal Cases 
9 
EFTA00232261

Confidential") do not apply to criminal cases. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420, 2007 
Court Commentary ("New subdivision (d) applies to motions that seek to make court 
records in non-criminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (c)(9)."); see 
also In re Amendments to Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420--Sealing of Court Records & 
Dockets, 954 So. 2d 16, 17 & 23 (Fla. 2007) (declining to adopt specific procedure 
regarding the sealing of court records in criminal cases and referring the matter to rules 
committees for further study). Under the version of rule 2.420 in effect when the 
documents were sealed, there is no procedure for criminal proceedings. 
Even under the prior version of rule 2.420, Judge Pucillo was not required to 
give prior notice of her intent to seal documents during the plea hearing. Committee 
Notes on the 1995 amendments discussing a prior version of Rule 2.420(c)(9)(D), 
make clear that advance notice is not always required: 
Unlike the closure of court proceedings, which has 
been held to require notice and hearing prior to closure, see 
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 
1982), the closure of court records has not required 
prior notice. Requiring prior notice of closure of a court 
record may be impractical and burdensome in 
emergency circumstances or when closure of a court 
record requiring confidentiality_is_requested during a 
judicial proceeding. 
The local administrative rule the non-parties cite, 15th Judicial Circuit 
10 
EFTA00232262

Administrative Order 2.303, is not applicable either. This Administrative Order 
addresses the procedures for sealing criminal and non-criminal court records, but was 
not adopted until September 29, 2008--months after Judge Pucillo sua sponte ordered 
the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum filed and sealed. The Administrative 
Order in effect when Judge Pucillo sealed these documents was 2.032-10/06. As 
explained above, the procedures designated therein would not apply since Judge 
Pucillo filed and sealed the documents sua sponte, not by motion. To the extent that 
the Administrative Order conflicts with the version of rule 2.420 then in effect, the rule 
prevails. Judge Pucillo was not required to follow Administrative Order 2.032 when 
she sealed the documents in June 2008. 
Assuming compliance with procedures for confidentiality was required, Mr. 
Epstein met them. At all times, the rules ofjudicial administration provided that court 
records 
be confidential" if a court has determined that confidentiality is 
required. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Rule 2.420(c)(9) provides: 
(c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial 
branch 
be confidential: 
(9) Any court record determined to be confidential in 
case decision or court rule on the grounds that 
(A) confidentiality is required to 
(i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the 
fair, impartial, and orderly administration of 
justice; 
(ii) protect trade secrets; 
11 
EFTA00232263

(iii) protect a compelling governmental 
interest; 
(iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues 
in a case; 
(v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third 
parties; 
(vi) avoid substantial injury to a party by 
disclosure of matters protected by a common law 
or privacy right not generally inherent in the 
specific type of proceeding sought to be closed; 
(vii) comply with established public policy 
set forth in the Florida or United States 
Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or case 
law; 
(B) the degree, duration, and manner of 
confidentiality ordered by the court shall be no 
broader than necessary to protect the interests set 
forth in subdivision (A); and 
(C) no less restrictive measures are available to 
protect the interests set forth in subdivision (A). 
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9). Thus, courts are required to seal court records upon a 
fmding that closure is need to "prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, 
impartial, and orderly administration of justice," to "avoid substantial injury to 
innocent third parties" or to "avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters 
protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type 
of proceeding sought to be closed." Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(i), (v), (vi). 
Mr. Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential satisfied these 
requirements; thus, the court erred in denying it. Mr. Epstein alleged three separate 
grounds for confidentiality. He first argued that confidentiality is necessary to protect 
12 
EFTA00232264

a compelling government interest. He satisfied this prong since the United States 
Attorney's Office has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provision of 
its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. Judge Marra already balanced that interest 
against arguments for disclosure and struck a balance by requiring disclosure to 
plaintiffs and their lawyers, but not to third parties. Secondly, Mr. Epstein contended 
that maintaining confidentiality will avoid injury to innocent third parties, i.e., the other 
persons the United States Attorney's Office agreed not to prosecute who will be 
harmed if the documents are unsealed. Thirdly, Mr. Epstein demonstrated that 
confidentiality is necessary to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of 
matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the 
specific type of proceeding sought to be closed. Disclosure of these documents is not 
generally inherent in a state court plea hearing and will violate Mr. Epstein's common 
law right to confidentiality. 
Granting a stay would vindicate the values and purposes of grand jury secrecy 
which will be implicated, if a stay is denied, by the public disclosure of a confidential 
agreement that references matters related to a federal grand jury investigation. There is 
no prejudice to non-parties/interveners ■., ■. and The Post, if disclosure is stayed 
pending the outcome of Mr. Epstein's emergency petition for certiorari. Mr. Epstein, 
on the other hand, will suffer irreparable harm once the documents are produced--a fact 
13 
EFTA00232265

the trial court recognized (A-19:16). 
CONCLUSION 
This Court should grant review and order the trial court to stay the order 
unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and addendum pending certiorari review. 
CERTIFICATION OF EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCY 
Undersigned counsel certifies that the subject of this motion constitutes an 
emergency. The trial court's order at noon on July 2, 2009, provides that the 
confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum will be disclosed. Once 
these documents are disclosed, irreparable harm will result. 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by E-Mail and 
Federal Express this 3ccu. day of June, 2009, to: 
JEFFREY H. SLOMAN 
U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 
500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
WILLIAILLBERGER
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 
401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 
Fort Lauderdale. FL 33394 
Counsel for 
JUDITH STEVENSON ARCO 
State Attorney's Office-West Palm Beach 
401 North Dixie Highway 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
DEANNA K. ST-IT IT WAN.
400 North 
Drive, Suite 1100 
P. O. Box 2602 (33601) 
Tampa, FL 33602 
Counsel for The Palm Beach Post 
14 
EFTA00232266

SPENCER T. KUVIN 
LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 
2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 
Counsel for M. 
HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH 
Palm Beach County Courthouse 
205 North Dixie Highway 
Room 11F 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
ROBERT D. CRITTON 
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTTER & COLEMAN 
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
JACK A. GOLDBERGER 
ATTEFLBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 
250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
and 
JANE KREUSLER-WALSH and 
BARBARA J. COMPIANI of 
KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 
501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 
By: 
or Petitioner 
NEIGREUSLER-WALSH 
lorida Bar No. 
15 
EFTA00232267

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 
OF APPEAL OF THE STATE 
OF 
FLORIDA, 
FOURTH 
DISTRICT 
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
STATE OF FLORIDA, 
Respondent. 
CASE NO. 
PALM BEACH 
LT. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A 
EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 
Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, seeks a writ of certiorari pursuant to 
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(cX1), to review an order 
compelling disclosure of a confidential federal non-prosecution agreement 
and addendum, pursuant to motions to unseal, filed by non-parties, 
and Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post").1
The confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between 
the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. Epstein were filed under seal in 
state court at the express directive of the judge who heard Mr. Epstein's 
guilty plea- "I want a sealed c"py of that filed in this care"—and not by 
I 
 
Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein is referred to by proper name. Non-party 
interveners, 
., M. and The Post are referred to as 
., M. and The 
Post. All emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following 
symbol is used: A — Petitioner's appendix. 
1 
EFTA00232268

motion of any party (A-7:40). Federal Court Judge Marra has twice denied 
public access to these documents. 
Mr. Epstein seeks certiorari review on an emergency basis.2 The court 
stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. Once the documents 
are produced, there will be no adequate remedy. 
I. JURISDICTION 
Mr. Epstein seeks to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court 
pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(bX2)(A) and 9.100. 
Certiorari review is appropriate where, as here, an order unsealing a court 
record departs from the essential requirements of law and causes material 
injury that cannot be remedied on appeal after final judgment. See Allstate 
Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). 
This Court should exercise its certiorari jurisdiction to quash the order 
unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and addendum. 
Production of 
 these-deco 
irreparab! 
„}-to-Mr. 
Epstein. The order departs from the essential requirements of law because 
2 Mr. Epstein has contemporaneously filed an emergency motion to 
review denial of stay. 
2 
EFTA00232269

the court failed to recognize principles of supremacy and comity and failed 
to apply the correct law as to sealing these records. 
Alternatively, Mr. Epstein appeals the order under Florida Rule of 
Appellate Procedure 9.140(b)(1)(D) as an order entered after a {hiding of 
guilt in a criminal case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.040(c) ("If a party seeks an 
improper remedy, the cause shall be treated as if the proper remedy had been 
sought. . .."). 
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 
In 2006, a Florida state grand jury indicted Jeffrey Epstein for felony 
solicitation of prostitution. 
He was also charged by information with 
procuring persons under 18 for prostitution. The United States Attorney's 
Office for the Southern District of Florida began a federal grand jury 
investigation into allegations arising out of the same conduct. 
In September 2007, the United States Attorney's Office and Mr. 
Epstein—emeeuted—a—nen-preseetition—agreentent—(4-7-.38)---Tii
.3
prosecution agreement contains an express confidentiality provision (A-
3 The non-prosecution agreement and addendum are separately filed 
with a motion to seal. 
3 
EFTA00232270

7:38). The United States Attorney's Office agreed to defer the federal 
criminal action on the condition that Mr. Epstein comply with many 
obligations, beginning with his pleading guilty to certain state charges in the 
Florida criminal action (A-7:38). A breach of any condition violates the 
non-prosecution agreement and criminal charges will resume (A-7:39-40). 
On June 30, 2008, Mr. Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of 
prostitution and procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution in the Florida 
criminal action (A-7; A-8). Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, sitting for the 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, accepted the plea (A-7). 
During the plea conference, Judge Pucillo asked Mr. Epstein whether 
any promises had been made to him besides the terms of the state plea (A-
7:37-38). Mr. Epstein's attorney advised the court of the "confidential [non-
prosecution agreement with the United States Attorney's Office] that the 
parties have agreed to." (A-7:38). He informed the court that Mr. Epstein's 
failure to comply with the terms of the state plea would violate the non-
 prosecution-agreement-644:39-40)z-
Judge Pucillo then instructed Mr. Epstein's attorney that she wanted 
4 
EFTA00232271

"a sealed copy of that filed in this case." (A-7:40). When Mr. Epstein's 
attorney tried to comply, and file the non-prosecution agreement with the 
court, the clerk advised him an order was necessary. On July 2, 2008, the 
court entered an "Agreed Order Sealing Document in Court File" (A-9). An 
addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was filed under seal on August 
25, 2008. 
On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed an independent 
action in federal court to compel production of the non-prosecution 
agreement (A-1). Mr. Epstein was not a party to the proceeding, but the 
United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure (42). On August 16, 
2008, Judge Marra of the Southern District ordered the United States 
Attorney's Office to produce the non-prosecution agreement to the Does' 
attorneys and to any other victims and their counsel, provided they not 
disclose the terms to anyone else (A-2). As a result of this order, all victims, 
including those with civil suits against Mr. Epstein, have access to the non-
prosecution agreement and addendum. They just cannot share it with others. 
In September 2008, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 filed motions in the 
federal criminal action to unseal the non-prosecution agreement (A-3). The 
5 
EFTA00232272

United States Attorney's Office opposed disclosure noting its confidentiality 
provision, the movant's right to access the agreement, and Judge Marra's 
protective order to which the movants voiced no objection (A-4). On 
February 12, 2009,4 Judge Marra denied the motion, finding in pertinent 
part: 
Petitioners' mere desire to discuss the Agreement 
with third parties is insufficient, in and of itself, to 
warrant the granting of such relief. If and when 
Petitioners have a specific tangible need to be 
relieved of the restrictions, they should file an 
appropriate motion. If a specific tangible need 
arises in a civil case Petitioners or other alleged 
victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should 
be sought in that case, with notice to the United 
States, the other party to the Agreement. 
(A-6). 
Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non-
Party 
., a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal 
action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial 
Administration 2.420(d)(5) (A-10)... alleged that the proper procedures 
had not been followed in sealing the documents (A-10). 
claimed these 
documents are relevant to her civil action against Mr. Epstein and that she, 
4 The order is mistakenly dated February 12, 2008 (A-6). 
6 
EFTA00232273

as a member of the public, has a right to have them unsealed; and that 
continued sealing violates public policy (A-10). 
On June 1, 2009, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post 
("The Post") also moved in the state criminal action to intervene and access 
the agreement and addendum (A-11). The Post alleged the procedures for 
sealing had not been followed and that "good cause exists for unsealing the 
documents because of their public significance." (A-11:3). 
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath heard M's and The 
Post's motions in the state criminal action on June 10, 2009 (A-13). The 
court granted both motions to intervene, but deferred ruling on the motions 
to unseal pending a later hearing (A-13). 
The next day, Mr. Epstein filed a Motion to Make Court Records 
Confidential (A-13). Mr. Epstein alleged that the documents should remain 
confidential to prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and 
ordcrly administration—of 
• , 
},elling government 
interest; to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties; and to avoid 
substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common 
7 
EFTA00232274

law and privacy right, not generally inherent in the specific type of 
proceeding sought to be closed (A-13). 
Also on June 11, non-party 
filed motions to intervene and for an 
order unsealing the records, alleging grounds similar to non-parties.. and 
The Palm Beach Post (A-12). 
Judge Colbath heard M's, The Post's, and M.'s motions to 
unseal, and Mr. Epstein's motion for confidentiality, on June 25, 2009 (A-
16). The court granted M's, The Post's, and M.'s motions and denied 
Mr. Eptsein's (A-16:2). The court concluded: 
At the time the state court took these matters under 
seal, the proper procedure for sealing such 
documents had not been followed . . . [and that] 
[n]either the State of Florida nor the U.S. 
Government nor Mr. Epstein have [sic] presented 
sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of 
documents currently held by the court. 
(A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be 
interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth 
Marra's previous a d‘rs." (A-16.3). Subsulticnt to this oral ruling, M. 
Epstein provided the court with a Motion for Stay (A-14). The court stayed 
disclosure until it could hear Mr. Epstein's motion to stay, scheduled for the 
8 
EFTA00232275

next day (A-16:3). 
The court heard Mr. Epstein's stay motion on June 26, 2009 (A-19). 
Mr. Epstein alleged that he will be irreparably harmed by disclosure of the 
non-prosecution agreement and addendum (A-14). No harm will be done if 
the documents remain under seal pending review by this Court (A-14). The 
court denied the motion, but stayed disclosure until noon on Thursday, July 
2, 2009, so Mr. Epstein could seek review of the denial in this Court (A-17). 
Mr. Epstein has filed an emergency motion to review denial of stay in this 
Court, contemporaneously with this motion. 
HI. NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT 
Mr. Epstein seeks to quash the June 25, 2009 order granting non-
parties' motions to unseal the confidential non-prosecution agreement and 
addendum between Mr. Epstein and the United States Attorney's Office. 
IV. ARGUMENT 
The—tTia 
14.1111 tnVC 
C 
14 rt.gtlarcn lento OI law 
granting the motions to unseal the confidential federal non-prosecution 
agreement and addendum between the United States Attorney's Office and 
EFTA00232276