Case 1:20-cv-05614-AKH Document 31 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 2
U.S. Department of Justice
[Type text]
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street
New York, New York 10007

July 30, 2020
BY ECF
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Cohen v. Barr, et al., No. 20 Civ. 5614 (AKH)

Dear Judge Hellerstein:
The Government writes, with the consent and agreement of Petitioner, to update the Court
on several issues in the above-captioned matter, including to notify the Court that the parties have
conferred and reached agreement regarding the media provision.
First, the parties agree that Your Honor’s statements on the record during the July 23, 2020,
hearing indicated an intention that Petitioner be transferred from Federal Correctional Institution,
Otisville, to home confinement. However, the Court’s subsequent order uses the term “release,”
rather than home confinement. See ECF No. 30. Therefore, with Petitioner’s consent,
Respondents respectfully request that the Court clarify that Petitioner is on home confinement,
rather than under a term of supervised release.
Second, consistent with the Court’s order, Petitioner was transferred to home confinement
on Friday, July 24, 2020. Petitioner’s home confinement is now being monitored through one of
BOP’s contracts with a residential reentry center (“RRC”) provider, rather than by the United
States Probation Office (“Probation Office”). RRC supervision is a routine manner of home
confinement supervision. The RRC uses a different, standard home confinement agreement than
the Probation Office (“RRC Agreement”). On Friday, the parties agreed that the Petitioner would
sign the attached RRC Agreement and that the terms in the RRC Agreement were acceptable to
Petitioner and the functional equivalent of items 2 through 8 in the Federal Location Monitoring
(“FLM”) agreement that Your Honor had deemed appropriate. See ECF No. 30; July 23 Hr’g Tr.
18-19.
Third, the parties agree that a specific provision regarding Petitioner’s contact with the
media is not necessary. Per the attached RRC Agreement, Petitioner is required to have his
employment approved by the RRC just like any other supervisee, and this approval will not be
unreasonably withheld. See ¶ 8. There is therefore no need for this Court to resolve any further
dispute about restrictions on Petitioner’s contact with the media.

 Case 1:20-cv-05614-AKH Document 31 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 2
Page 2
Finally, the parties will consider the Court’s injunction to be permanent. Respondents do
not intend to further litigate or appeal the Court’s rulings. See ECF No. 30; July 23 Hr’g Tr. 11,
18-19. Therefore, the parties agree that the Court need not conduct any further proceedings in this
matter. The parties further request that the Court dismiss this matter.
The parties have contemporaneously filed a stipulation and proposed order to this effect.
We thank the Court for its consideration of this letter.
Respectfully,
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
By: /s/ Allison M. Rovner
ALLISON M. ROVNER
Assistant United States Attorney
Tel. (212) 637-2691
cc:

Counsel for Petitioners (By ECF)