DOJ-OGR-00014859.jpg
559 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
559 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. Maxwell argued that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejected her argument, holding that the NPA made with the USAO-SDFL does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting her.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Appellant who sought dismissal of charges based on an NPA, arguing she was a third-party beneficiary.
|
|
| Epstein |
Party to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL. Maxwell is described as a potential co-conspirator.
|
|
| Walters |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Walters'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
Imposed a fine and special assessment, and denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment.
|
| USAO-SDFL | Government agency |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which made a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) wi...
|
| USAO-SDNY | Government agency |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which is prosecuting Maxwell.
|
| United States Attorney | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of a legal principle that a plea agreement binds only the office for the district in which t...
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (3)
The document cites a portion of Epstein's NPA that refers to 'potential co-conspirators of Epstein,' which Maxwell argues applies to her.
The document states that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL.
Key Quotes (2)
"the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein."Source
— NPA between Epstein and USAO-SDFL
(Cited by Maxwell in her argument that the NPA barred her prosecution.)
DOJ-OGR-00014859.jpg
Quote #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"Source
— Circuit Court precedent
(A legal principle cited to establish that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY.)
DOJ-OGR-00014859.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,249 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-PAE Document 780-2 Filed 12/02/21 Page 29 of 26
District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell’s Prosecution by USAO-SDNY
Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell’s arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.⁹
In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which “the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.”¹⁰ We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY.
It is well established in our Circuit that “[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
⁹ See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018).
¹⁰ A-178.
9
DOJ-OGR-00014859
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document