DOJ-OGR-00021836.jpg
646 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
8
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
646 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated November 1, 2024, presents an argument for an en banc review to potentially overrule or limit the 'Annabi' canon of construction for plea agreements. The text discusses the jurisdictional authority of U.S. Attorneys' offices, citing the U.S. Attorneys' Manual and the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue about the scope of immunity and the government's obligation to be explicit about its limitations. The argument is framed in the context of a past case involving interviews with Epstein's lawyers.
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as having relied on the United States Attorneys' Manual.
|
| United States Attorneys' Manual | Government publication |
Cited for its directive on inter-district binding agreements.
|
| United States Attorneys | Government role |
Mentioned as needing to give express written approval for inter-district agreements.
|
| USAOs | Government agency |
Abbreviation for United States Attorney's Offices, mentioned in the context of binding agreements across districts.
|
| AUSAs | Government role |
Abbreviation for Assistant United States Attorneys, mentioned as being able to bind other districts.
|
| The Panel | Judicial body |
Mentioned as having based its decision on the Annabi case.
|
| Supreme Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned as having written about plea and immunity agreements.
|
| This Circuit | Judicial body |
A specific, unnamed U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mentioned as having written about plea and immunity agreements.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1789
The Judiciary Act of 1789 was passed, which is cited to suggest US Attorneys are limited to their specific district.
An argument is made for an en banc review to determine if Annabi's canon of construction for plea agreements should be overruled or limited.
Prosecutors interviewed Epstein's lawyers.
prosecutors
Epstein's lawyers
Relationships (1)
prosecutors
→
Professional (adversarial)
→
Epstein's lawyers
The document states that prosecutors were 'interviewing Epstein’s lawyers'.
Key Quotes (1)
"cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed."Source
— Judiciary Act of 1789 (as cited in 118 F.4th at 265)
(Used to describe the jurisdictional limits of US Attorneys.)
DOJ-OGR-00021836.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,447 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page12 of 51
interviewing Epstein’s lawyers. Notably, the prosecutors could not recall why the
clause had been added, much less who it was meant to immunize. SA104-106.
The Court also relied on the United States Attorneys’ Manual’s directive that
districts not bind other districts without the express written approval of the United
States Attorneys in the affected districts and the Judiciary Act of 1789 to suggest that
US Attorneys are “cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.” 118
F.4th at 265. Notably, the Manual also contains an admonition that USAOs who do
not wish to bind USAOs in other districts explicitly limit the scope of an NPA to
their districts. Justice Manual 9-27-630. This admonition implicitly acknowledges
that AUSAs can bind other districts and that it is the obligation of the government to
make explicit any limitation in the scope of immunity.
clause had been added, much less who it was meant to immunize. SA104-106.
The Court also relied on the United States Attorneys’ Manual’s directive that
districts not bind other districts without the express written approval of the United
States Attorneys in the affected districts and the Judiciary Act of 1789 to suggest that
US Attorneys are “cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.” 118
F.4th at 265. Notably, the Manual also contains an admonition that USAOs who do
not wish to bind USAOs in other districts explicitly limit the scope of an NPA to
their districts. Justice Manual 9-27-630. This admonition implicitly acknowledges
that AUSAs can bind other districts and that it is the obligation of the government to
make explicit any limitation in the scope of immunity.
ARGUMENT
EN BANC REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
ANNABI’S CANON OF CONSTRUCTION FOR PLEA AGREEMENTS
SHOULD BE OVERRULED OR LIMITED
ANNABI’S CANON OF CONSTRUCTION FOR PLEA AGREEMENTS
SHOULD BE OVERRULED OR LIMITED
The Panel based its decision on Annabi. Annabi should be overruled because
its canon of construction for interpreting plea agreements conflicts with the
authoritative decisions of other circuits that have addressed the issue and stands in
tension with what the Supreme Court and this Circuit have written about plea and
immunity agreements.
its canon of construction for interpreting plea agreements conflicts with the
authoritative decisions of other circuits that have addressed the issue and stands in
tension with what the Supreme Court and this Circuit have written about plea and
immunity agreements.
7
DOJ-OGR-00021836
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document