DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
700 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
6
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
700 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated February 28, 2023, presents a series of case law citations to support the legal argument that a plea agreement made by an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) binds the entire United States government. The cited cases establish that the U.S. government is considered a single entity across all districts, and therefore, an agreement made by one of its attorneys in one location (e.g., West Virginia) is enforceable against federal prosecutors in another (e.g., South Dakota).
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Thomas | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Thomas v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994)'.
|
| Levasseur | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'U.S. v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 799 (1st Cir. 1988)'.
|
| Annabi | Litigant |
Mentioned in the context of a legal principle from a case ('declining to apply Annabi in the estoppel context').
|
| Harvey | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'U.S. v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986)'.
|
| Carter | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'U.S. v. Carter, 454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972)'.
|
| Young | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Young v. U.S., 953 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1069 n.4 (D.S.D. 2013)'.
|
| Little | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Little v. U.S., Nos. 1:08-cr-59, 1:09-cv-822, 2010 WL 3942749, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. ...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States government | government agency |
Mentioned multiple times as the entity bound by plea agreements made by its agents.
|
| I.N.S. | government agency |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case 'Thomas v. I.N.S.' (Immigration and Naturalization Service).
|
| United States Attorney | government agency |
Referenced as 'AUSA' (Assistant United States Attorney) and 'United States Attorneys', whose plea agreements are disc...
|
| United States of America | government agency |
Mentioned as a party to a plea agreement in the 'Little v. U.S.' case.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Implied by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00021083', likely referring to the Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (6 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where a plea agreement was made that would bind prosecutors elsewhere.
|
|
|
Location where federal prosecutors would be bound by a plea agreement made in West Virginia.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a case citation as 'S.D. Ohio' (Southern District of Ohio).
|
Relationships (1)
The document cites multiple cases establishing that promises and plea agreements made by an AUSA are binding on the entire United States government, including its agents in other districts.
Key Quotes (5)
"promises made by an [AUSA]” in a plea agreement “bind all agents of the United States government"Source
— Thomas v. I.N.S.
(Quoted to support the argument that an AUSA's promise binds the entire government.)
DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
Quote #1
"the representation of any [AUSA] may, in appropriate circumstances, be invoked to estop the United States..."Source
— U.S. v. Levasseur
(Cited as a holding that an AUSA's representation can legally prevent the U.S. government from taking a contrary position.)
DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
Quote #2
"Whenever a United States Attorney negotiates and enters a plea agreement, it is the Government that ‘agrees’ to whatever is agreed to."Source
— U.S. v. Harvey
(Quoted to show that a U.S. Attorney acts on behalf of the entire government in plea negotiations.)
DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]he United States government is the United States government throughout all of the states and districts"Source
— U.S. v. Carter
(Quoted to establish the principle that the U.S. government is a single, unified entity for legal purposes.)
DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
Quote #4
"bind[] the United States Attorneys in all other districts"Source
— Little v. U.S.
(Quoted as the interpretation of a plea agreement that was silent on its effect in other jurisdictions.)
DOJ-OGR-00021083.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,654 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page36 of 113
(“promises made by an [AUSA]” in a plea agreement “bind all agents of the
United States government”); Thomas v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994)
(enforcing against the INS a cooperation agreement between defendant and an
AUSA promising that “the government” would not oppose defendant’s application
for relief from deportation); U.S. v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 799 (1st Cir. 1988)
(expressly declining to apply Annabi in the estoppel context, instead holding that
“the representation of any [AUSA] may, in appropriate circumstances, be invoked
to estop the United States...”); U.S. v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986)
(“Whenever a United States Attorney negotiates and enters a plea agreement, it is
the Government that ‘agrees’ to whatever is agreed to.”); U.S. v. Carter, 454 F.2d
426 (4th Cir. 1972) (en banc) (vacating conviction where a plea “bargain was
allegedly breached in a neighboring district,” adding that “[t]he United States
government is the United States government throughout all of the states and
districts”); Young v. U.S., 953 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1069 n.4 (D.S.D. 2013) (plea
agreement between defendant and “the United States” in West Virginia would bind
federal prosecutors in South Dakota); Little v. U.S., Nos. 1:08-cr-59, 1:09-cv-822,
2010 WL 3942749, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2010) (plea agreement between
defendant “and the United States of America,” which was “silent as to the effect it
may have with respect to other United States Attorneys,” would be interpreted to
“bind[] the United States Attorneys in all other districts”).
United States government”); Thomas v. I.N.S., 35 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994)
(enforcing against the INS a cooperation agreement between defendant and an
AUSA promising that “the government” would not oppose defendant’s application
for relief from deportation); U.S. v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 799 (1st Cir. 1988)
(expressly declining to apply Annabi in the estoppel context, instead holding that
“the representation of any [AUSA] may, in appropriate circumstances, be invoked
to estop the United States...”); U.S. v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986)
(“Whenever a United States Attorney negotiates and enters a plea agreement, it is
the Government that ‘agrees’ to whatever is agreed to.”); U.S. v. Carter, 454 F.2d
426 (4th Cir. 1972) (en banc) (vacating conviction where a plea “bargain was
allegedly breached in a neighboring district,” adding that “[t]he United States
government is the United States government throughout all of the states and
districts”); Young v. U.S., 953 F.Supp.2d 1049, 1069 n.4 (D.S.D. 2013) (plea
agreement between defendant and “the United States” in West Virginia would bind
federal prosecutors in South Dakota); Little v. U.S., Nos. 1:08-cr-59, 1:09-cv-822,
2010 WL 3942749, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2010) (plea agreement between
defendant “and the United States of America,” which was “silent as to the effect it
may have with respect to other United States Attorneys,” would be interpreted to
“bind[] the United States Attorneys in all other districts”).
21
DOJ-OGR-00021083
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document