DOJ-OGR-00020763.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
6
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, argues that a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Citing Second Circuit precedent, particularly United States v. Annabi, the filing asserts that such agreements are limited to the district in which they are made unless they explicitly state a broader scope. The document refutes an opposing argument from an individual named Maxwell, stating the NPA lacks the necessary language to apply to other districts.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as asking the Court to draw a conclusion opposite to the one presented in the document.
|
|
| Santobello | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Santobello v. New York' as legal precedent.
|
| Ready | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Ready' as legal precedent.
|
| Annabi | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Annabi' as the source of a key legal holding.
|
| Salameh | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Salameh' as legal precedent.
|
| Gonzalez | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Gonzalez' as legal precedent.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York | Government agency |
The document argues that a non-prosecution agreement does not bind this office.
|
| United States Attorneys | Government agency |
Mentioned as speaking for the United States and making promises in plea bargains.
|
| U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida | Government agency |
The document questions whether this office had the power to bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New Y...
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Its precedent is being applied to interpret the scope of the non-prosecution agreement.
|
| The Court | Court |
The entity being addressed in the legal argument, which concludes that the NPA's terms did not bind other districts.
|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned as the entity for which U.S. Attorneys speak and as a party in several cited legal cases.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The jurisdiction where the legal argument is being made and which the document argues is not bound by the NPA.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the case citation 'Santobello v. New York' and as part of the name of the judicial district.
|
|
|
The jurisdiction where the non-prosecution agreement in question was presumably made.
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal argument against a position held by Maxwell ('Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite conclusion'), indicating they are opposing parties in a legal proceeding.
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
— The Second Circuit
(Quoted from the case 'United States v. Annabi' to support the argument that plea agreements are typically district-specific.)
DOJ-OGR-00020763.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,219 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page145 of 208
A-141
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34
A-141
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 34
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 every instance to make clear that it applies only in the district where signed.
Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite conclusion. The provision of the NPA dealing with co-conspirators does not expressly state that it binds U.S. Attorneys in other districts. It does not expressly state that it applies in other districts. The relevant language, in
4
DOJ-OGR-00020763
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document