• • D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new, protracted phase, which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the fact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the NPA, they pursued a new strategy of appealing to senior Department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of Epstein's guilty plea by months. On October 29, 2007, Villafafia emailed Sloman, raising several issues that s wanted Sloman to address with Lefkowitz. Among other things, Villafana pointed out t t t e NPA ply required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to comply with the agreement, but he had f • ea earing with the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtain o limit the postponement from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz' the USAO and individuals, Villafana with various entities USAO's communications attorney "to Office an s' needed to be able to communicate with the State Attorney's [e]nsure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of the agreement." Sloman that the state judge That same day, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek in January 2008. Belohlavek assigned to the case had scheduled Epstein's plea and sente ore the January 4th date that assured Sloman that the "plea and sentence will definite ver the course ofthe next month was agreed on by all for the sentencing."t' 9 Nonethel counsel continued to communicate show that the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, asse ing that a proposed January 7, 2008 regarding the date of the guilty plea, with the able," while the defense contended that date for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea w communications referring to various Final Itiple agreed to any date. Epstein had not Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of pstei ttomey potential dates, on December 7, 200 130 Hearing, setting the case for January E. m al Review of the NPA's §