DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
746 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
746 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) is only binding within that specific district. The document refutes the defendant's claim that the use of terms like "United States" implies the agreement binds the entire U.S. Government, citing several legal precedents, including cases from the Second Circuit, to support the position that such agreements are geographically limited unless explicitly stated otherwise.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Salameh |
Cited in the case Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120, regarding the use of the term 'government' in plea agreements.
|
|
| Brown |
Defendant in the case United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994.
|
|
| Bruno |
Defendant in the case United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321.
|
|
| Annabi |
Cited as a case where the Second Circuit first explained that plea agreements apply only in the district in which the...
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned as the entity that the NPA was intended to bind, specifically the USAO-SDFL.
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
The specific U.S. Attorney's Office (Southern District of Florida) whose representatives signed the Non-Prosecution A...
|
| Department of Justice | government agency |
Mentioned as a component of the U.S. government that was not specifically mentioned or included in the NPA's signatur...
|
| United States Government | government agency |
The defendant argues the NPA intended to bind the entire United States Government.
|
| Second Circuit | court |
A federal appellate court that has rejected the argument that using terms like 'government' or 'United States' in a p...
|
| The Court | court |
Refers to the court in the United States v. Bruno case, which disagreed with the defendant's argument.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of Florida, the district where the plea agreement was argued to be exclusively...
|
|
|
Abbreviation for the Eastern District of New York, the court district for the United States v. Bruno case.
|
|
|
Used in the NPA, which the defendant argues implies binding the entire U.S. Government. Also used in case names.
|
Key Quotes (5)
"affirmative appearance"Source
— Unnamed (legal term)
(Describing what the NPA text lacks to show intent to bind other districts.)
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
Quote #1
"[t]he mere use of the term ‘government’ in the plea agreement does not create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement."Source
— Second Circuit (in Salameh case)
(Quoted to argue against the defendant's interpretation of the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
Quote #2
"even if the plea agreement purports to bind ‘the Government’” or the “United States"Source
— Second Circuit (in Brown case)
(Quoted from a summary order stating a plea agreement does not bind other districts.)
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court disagrees with Defendant’s argument that the phrase ‘United States’ shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney’s Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant’s liability in the SDFL."Source
— Court in United States v. Bruno
(Quoted to support the argument that the agreement is limited to the signing district.)
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
Quote #4
"As an original proposition, a plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that ‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of an indictment . . . might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the"Source
— Second Circuit (in Annabi case)
(Explaining the general principle that plea agreements are limited to the district where they are executed unless specified otherwise.)
DOJ-OGR-00002966.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,213 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 32 of 239
1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts
Turning first to the text of the NPA, the terms of the agreement do not contain an “affirmative appearance” that the parties who signed the NPA intended to bind any other U.S. Attorney’s Office. To begin with, there can be no dispute that only representatives of the USAO-SDFL signed the agreement. There is no signature block for, nor specific mention of, any other district or component of the Department of Justice.
In her motion, the defendant argues that the words “United States” in the NPA evince an intent to bind the entire United States Government. (Def. Mot. 1 at 18). But the Second Circuit has rejected this very argument: “[t]he mere use of the term ‘government’ in the plea agreement does not create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement.” Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This rule also extends to plea agreements that use the term “United States.” See United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts “even if the plea agreement purports to bind ‘the Government’” or the “United States”); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (“The Court disagrees with Defendant’s argument that the phrase ‘United States’ shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney’s Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant’s liability in the SDFL.”).
As the Second Circuit first explained in Annabi, plea agreements apply only in the district in which they are executed, absent evidence that the parties agreed to broader restrictions:
As an original proposition, a plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that ‘the Government’ will dismiss counts of an indictment . . . might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the
5
DOJ-OGR-00002966
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document