DOJ-OGR-00021088.jpg
705 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
705 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document argues that the Court's precedents do not require applying the 'Annabi' canon to agreements formed outside its Circuit. It cites several cases to support the position that federal plea agreements should be analyzed under general choice-of-law principles for contracts, highlighting a magistrate judge's questioning of the current practice.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Prisco |
Party in a cited case, Prisco, 391 F. App’x at 921.
|
|
| Ashraf |
Party in a cited case, Ashraf, 320 F. App’x at 28.
|
|
| Gonzalez |
Party in a cited case, Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x at 270.
|
|
| Brown |
Party in a cited case, Brown, 2002 WL 34244994.
|
|
| Vera M. Scanlon | Magistrate Judge |
Mentioned as having openly questioned the line of cases applying the Annabi canon.
|
| Bruno | Defendant |
Party in a cited case, U.S. v. Bruno, Case No. 14-cr-556.
|
| Lindemuth | Defendant |
Party in a cited case, U.S. v. Lindemuth, Case No. 16-40047-01-DDC.
|
| Kaplan | Plaintiff |
Party in a cited case, Kaplan v. C.I.R., Case No. 25652-12.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York | government agency |
Cited as E.D.N.Y. in the citation for U.S. v. Bruno.
|
| U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas | government agency |
Cited as D. Kan. in the citation for U.S. v. Lindemuth.
|
| C.I.R. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the defendant in the case Kaplan v. C.I.R., likely the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00021088'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2015-12-15
A report and recommendation was issued in U.S. v. Bruno, noting 'a compelling argument' against applying Annabi to a plea agreement from outside the Circuit.
E.D.N.Y.
Key Quotes (1)
"a compelling argument"Source
— Vera M. Scanlon
(Noted in the case U.S. v. Bruno as an argument against applying the Annabi precedent to a plea agreement from outside the Circuit.)
DOJ-OGR-00021088.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,650 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page41 of 113
improper because it conflicted with both federal and New York choice-of-law rules and unfair because it unsettled the parties’ reasonable expectations.
As a threshold matter, none of this Court’s precedents require applying Annabi to agreements formed outside of this Circuit. Although this Court has done so in a few unpublished decisions, these mostly involved unambiguous agreements which made resort to the Annabi canon unnecessary in the first place. See Prisco, 391 F. App’x at 921; Ashraf, 320 F. App’x at 28; Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x at 270; but see Brown, 2002 WL 34244994, at *2. None of these decisions discussed the threshold question of which circuit’s law applied, and at least one magistrate judge, the Honorable Vera M. Scanlon, has openly questioned this line of cases. See U.S. v. Bruno, Case No. 14-cr-556, 2015 WL 13731357, at *16 n.11 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2015) (noting that there was “a compelling argument” against applying Annabi to a plea agreement from outside of this Circuit), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected on other grounds in part, 159 F.Supp.3d 311 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
Courts have held that federal plea and immunity agreements are analyzed under the same choice-of-law principles that apply to contracts generally. See U.S. v. Lindemuth, Case No. 16-40047-01-DDC, 2017 WL 3593226, at *3 (D. Kan. Aug. 21, 2017) (applying Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws [“Restatement”] §188 to determine which jurisdiction’s law governed federal plea agreement); Kaplan v. C.I.R., Case No. 25652-12, 2014 WL 988456, at *8 n.14
26
DOJ-OGR-00021088
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document