DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
751 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
8
Organizations
2
Locations
6
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
751 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing, argues that a plea agreement made by a United States Attorney's Office (USAO) in one district is generally binding on other USAOs and the federal government as a whole. It cites several court cases, such as Gebbie and Van Thournout, to support this majority view, while also acknowledging contrary or more limited rulings from circuits like the Seventh and Sixth in a footnote.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Gebbie | Litigant |
Cited in the case 'Gebbie, 294 F.3d at 550' regarding plea agreements binding United States Attorneys.
|
| Van Thournout | Litigant |
Cited in the case 'U.S. v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996)' regarding promises made by an AUSA.
|
| Margalli-Olvera | Litigant |
Cited in the case 'Margalli-Olvera v. I.N.S., 43 F.3d 345, 353 (8th Cir. 1994)' regarding plea agreements binding all...
|
| Thomas | Litigant |
Cited in the case 'Thomas v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994)' regarding a cooperation agreement with an AUSA.
|
| Levasseur | Litigant |
Cited in the case 'U.S. v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 799 (1st Cir. 1988)' which declined to apply the Annabi rule.
|
| Annabi | Litigant |
Referenced as a legal precedent or rule in the cases of 'Levasseur' and 'Rourke'.
|
| Rourke | Litigant |
Cited in the footnote case 'U.S. v. Rourke' where a plea agreement did not bind the Federal Aviation Administration.
|
| Robinson | Litigant |
Cited in the footnote case 'U.S. v. Robinson' regarding a plea agreement not being binding in another district.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO | government agency |
Abbreviation for United States Attorney's Office, discussed throughout the document in the context of binding agreeme...
|
| United States Attorney | government agency |
Mentioned as the entity negotiating plea agreements on behalf of the government.
|
| United States Government | government agency |
Referred to as 'the United States' or 'the Government', which can be bound by plea agreements made by a U.S. Attorney.
|
| I.N.S. | government agency |
Abbreviation for Immigration and Naturalization Service, mentioned in the cases of Margalli-Olvera and Thomas.
|
| Seventh Circuit | court |
Mentioned in a footnote as having held in U.S. v. Rourke that a plea agreement did not bind the FAA.
|
| Federal Aviation Administration | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as not being bound by a plea agreement in the U.S. v. Rourke case.
|
| Sixth Circuit | court |
Mentioned in a footnote in relation to the U.S. v. Robinson case.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00021840', likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (6 events)
1994
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the footnote as the location of a plea agreement in the U.S. v. Robinson case.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the footnote as the district where the plea agreement from North Carolina was not binding in the U.S. v....
|
Relationships (2)
one USAO
→
professional
→
other USAOs
The document discusses the legal question of whether a plea agreement made by one United States Attorney's Office (USAO) is legally binding on other USAOs, citing case law that generally supports this principle.
The document argues that a representation by a United States Attorney or their agents will bind the federal Government as a whole, not just the specific district office.
Key Quotes (3)
"[W]hen a United States Attorney negotiates and contracts on behalf of ‘the United States’ or ‘the Government’ in a plea agreement … that attorney speaks for and binds all of his or her fellow United States Attorneys with respect to those same crimes and those same defendants. … United States Attorneys should not be viewed as sovereigns of autonomous fiefdoms."Source
— Gebbie, 294 F.3d at 550
(Quoted as the holding from the Gebbie case, supporting the argument that one USAO's agreement binds others.)
DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
Quote #1
"Absent an express limitation, any promises made by an [AUSA] in one district will bind an [AUSA] in another district"Source
— U.S. v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996)
(Quoted to support the principle that promises from one Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) are binding on another.)
DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
Quote #2
"promises made by an [AUSA]” in a plea agreement “bind all agents of the United States government"Source
— Margalli-Olvera v. I.N.S., 43 F.3d 345, 353 (8th Cir. 1994)
(Quoted to show that AUSA promises can bind the entire U.S. government, not just other prosecutors.)
DOJ-OGR-00021840.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,040 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page16 of 51
one USAO is presumed not to bind other USAOs.4 To the contrary, the weight of authority holds that a representation by the United States Attorney or her agents will bind USAOs in other districts, if not the federal Government as a whole. See Gebbie, 294 F.3d at 550 (“[W]hen a United States Attorney negotiates and contracts on behalf of ‘the United States’ or ‘the Government’ in a plea agreement … that attorney speaks for and binds all of his or her fellow United States Attorneys with respect to those same crimes and those same defendants. … United States Attorneys should not be viewed as sovereigns of autonomous fiefdoms.”); U.S. v. Van Thournout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Absent an express limitation, any promises made by an [AUSA] in one district will bind an [AUSA] in another district”); Margalli-Olvera v. I.N.S., 43 F.3d 345, 353 (8th Cir. 1994) (“promises made by an [AUSA]” in a plea agreement “bind all agents of the United States government”); Thomas v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994) (enforcing against the INS a cooperation agreement between defendant and an AUSA promising that “the government” would not oppose defendant’s application for relief from deportation); U.S. v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 799 (1st Cir. 1988) (expressly declining to apply Annabi in the estoppel context, instead holding that “the representation of any [AUSA] may, in
4 The Seventh Circuit held in U.S. v. Rourke that a plea agreement did not bind the Federal Aviation Administration. See 74 F.3d 802, 807 n.5 (7th Cir. 1996). But Rourke did not go as far as Annabi in ruling that a promise by one USAO is presumptively nonbinding on other USAOs. The Sixth Circuit in U.S. v. Robinson held, on the facts before it, that a plea agreement in the Eastern District of North Carolina was not binding in the Eastern District of Michigan, but explicitly declined to take a position on Annabi’s broader rule. See 924 F.2d 612, 613 (6th Cir. 1991).
11
DOJ-OGR-00021840
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document