DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
545 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
545 KB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, discussing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) does not prevent the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting Maxwell. The text references a $750,000 fine imposed on Maxwell and cites legal precedent establishing that plea agreements generally only bind the specific district office where they are entered.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Appellant/Defendant |
Sought dismissal of charges based on Epstein's NPA; appealing a District Court decision.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of NPA |
Entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with USAO-SDFL; Maxwell argued she was a co-conspirator beneficiary of this ...
|
| Walters | Legal Precedent Subject |
Cited in footnote 9 (United States v. Walters).
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; party to the NPA with Epstein.
|
|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; prosecuting Maxwell.
|
|
| District Court |
Lower court that imposed the fine and denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss.
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Implied by 'our Circuit' and the citation to '2d Cir.' in footnote 9.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
N/A
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of USAO-SDFL.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of USAO-SDNY.
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell argued she was a 'potential co-conspirator' covered by Epstein's NPA.
Parties to the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
Quote #1
"We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
Quote #2
"the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,268 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page9 of 26
District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY
Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell's arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.9
In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which "the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein."10 We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY.
It is well established in our Circuit that "[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
____________________
9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018).
9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018).
10 A-178.
9
DOJ-OGR-00000010
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document