DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
649 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
649 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the 'Annabi' court decision is an outlier and inconsistent with the Circuit's established law regarding the interpretation of plea agreements. The author contends that contrary to the District Court's opinion, the Circuit has been reluctant to rely on Annabi's reasoning, which construes ambiguities against the defendant, and has instead consistently held that such ambiguities should be resolved against the Government.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Annabi | Party in a legal case |
The subject of a legal decision being discussed and criticized for being 'out of step with the law of this Circuit'.
|
| Altro | Party in a legal case |
Cited as a legal precedent ('Altro, 180 F.3d at 375') for how plea agreements should be interpreted.
|
| Carmichael | Party in a legal case |
Cited as a legal precedent ('U.S. v. Carmichael, 216 F.3d 224') for construing plea agreements against the Government.
|
| Ready | Party in a legal case |
Cited as the source of a quote within the Carmichael decision ('U.S. v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 559').
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned as the party against which ambiguities in plea agreements are typically resolved.
|
| USAO | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office, mentioned in the context of the Annabi decision where an agreement might bind just o...
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in a plea agreement whose promise of immunity is central to the Annabi decision.
|
| District Court | government agency |
A lower court whose opinion that 'this Court' follows Annabi is being refuted.
|
| this Court | government agency |
The court hearing the current case, which the author argues has been reluctant to follow the reasoning of the Annabi ...
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided the Carmichael and Ready cases.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2000
The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Carmichael, which held that plea agreements are construed strictly against the Government.
2d Cir.
U.S.
Carmichael
Key Quotes (4)
"we determine whether a plea agreement has been breached by looking to the reasonable understanding of the parties and by resolving any ambiguities against the Government."Source
— Altro decision
(Describing the well-settled law of the Circuit for interpreting plea agreements.)
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
Quote #1
"[W]e ‘construe plea agreements strictly against the Government.’"Source
— U.S. v. Carmichael decision (quoting U.S. v. Ready)
(A quote used to support the argument that ambiguities are resolved against the Government.)
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
Quote #2
"unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction."Source
— Annabi decision
(The exception to the Annabi rule that an ambiguous promise of immunity binds only one USAO.)
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
Quote #3
"has followed [Annabi] steadfastly."Source
— The District Court
(An opinion from a lower court that the author of this document is arguing against.)
DOJ-OGR-00021084.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,526 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page37 of 113
Annabi is also out of step with the law of this Circuit. It is well-settled that
“we determine whether a plea agreement has been breached by looking to the
reasonable understanding of the parties and by resolving any ambiguities against
the Government.” Altro, 180 F.3d at 375; see also U.S. v. Carmichael, 216 F.3d
224 (2d Cir. 2000) (“‘[W]e ‘construe plea agreements strictly against the
Government.’”’) (quoting U.S. v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 559 (2d Cir. 1996)). But
Annabi flips this formulation on its head, holding that an ambiguous promise of
immunity by “the United States” is to be construed against the defendant—binding
just one USAO rather than the Government as a whole—“unless it affirmatively
appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.” 771 F.2d at 672.
Annabi did not explain or acknowledge its departure from this longstanding
doctrine.
The District Court opined that this Court “has followed [Annabi]
steadfastly.” A190. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Court has been
exceedingly reluctant to affirm a conviction on the force of Annabi’s reasoning.
So reluctant, in fact, that it has never relied on Annabi in a published decision to
hold that a plea agreement’s reference to the “United States” or the “Government”
was nonbinding on other districts. Every decision from this Court that cited
Annabi has done so essentially in dictum (as in cases involving unambiguous plea
22
DOJ-OGR-00021084
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document