DOJ-OGR-00000119.tif
40.7 KB
Extraction Summary
0
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document/court ruling excerpt
File Size:
40.7 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a legal analysis concerning the binding nature of non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) on different U.S. Attorney's offices. It discusses whether an NPA entered into by the Southern District of Florida could bind the Southern District of New York, concluding it did not based on Second Circuit precedent. The text cites several court cases, including Santobello v. New York, United States v. Ready, United States v. Annabi, United States v. Salameh, and United States v. Gonzalez, to support its legal arguments regarding contract principles and the interpretation of plea agreements.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York |
Subject of whether a non-prosecution agreement binds them
|
|
| U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida |
Question of their power to bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court whose precedent is applied
|
Key Quotes (1)
""A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00000119.tif
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,728 characters)
56a
A. The non-prosecution agreement does not
bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York
United States Attorneys speak for the United
States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part
of a plea bargain, both contract principles and due
process require the federal government to fulfill it. See
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971);
United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996).
The question here is not whether the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida had the power to
bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
New York. The question is whether the terms of the
NPA did so. Applying Second Circuit precedent and
principles of contract interpretation, the Court
concludes that they did not.
In United States v. Annabi, the Second Circuit held:
"A plea agreement binds only the office of the United
States Attorney for the district in which the plea is
entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
agreement contemplates a broader restriction." 771
F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam). This is
something akin to a clear statement rule. Single-
district plea agreements are the norm. Nationwide,
unlimited agreements are the rare exception. Applying
Annabi, panels of the Second Circuit have stated that
courts cannot infer intent to depart from this ordinary
practice from an agreement's use of phrases like "the
government" or "the United States." United States v.
Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam);
United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir.
2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea agreement
need not painstakingly spell out "the Office of the
United States Attorney for Such-and-Such District" in
DOJ-OGR-00000119
A. The non-prosecution agreement does not
bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York
United States Attorneys speak for the United
States. When a U.S. Attorney makes a promise as part
of a plea bargain, both contract principles and due
process require the federal government to fulfill it. See
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971);
United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996).
The question here is not whether the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of Florida had the power to
bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
New York. The question is whether the terms of the
NPA did so. Applying Second Circuit precedent and
principles of contract interpretation, the Court
concludes that they did not.
In United States v. Annabi, the Second Circuit held:
"A plea agreement binds only the office of the United
States Attorney for the district in which the plea is
entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
agreement contemplates a broader restriction." 771
F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam). This is
something akin to a clear statement rule. Single-
district plea agreements are the norm. Nationwide,
unlimited agreements are the rare exception. Applying
Annabi, panels of the Second Circuit have stated that
courts cannot infer intent to depart from this ordinary
practice from an agreement's use of phrases like "the
government" or "the United States." United States v.
Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam);
United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir.
2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea agreement
need not painstakingly spell out "the Office of the
United States Attorney for Such-and-Such District" in
DOJ-OGR-00000119
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document