DOJ-OGR-00000121.tif

58a
Circuit precedent she may offer evidence that negotia-
tions of the NPA between the defendant and the
prosecutors included a promise to bind other districts.
See United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir.
1986). She alleges that officials in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of Florida sought and
obtained approval for the NPA from the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General and communicated with
attorneys in other districts. Any involvement of attorneys
outside the Southern District of Florida appears
to have been minimal. Maxwell has already received
access to an unusually large amount of information
about the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the
OPR report and yet identifies no evidence that the
Department of Justice made any promises not contained
in the NPA. The OPR report reflects that the Office of
the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but
only after it was signed when Epstein tried to get out
of it. OPR Report at 103. Other documents show that
attorneys in the Southern District of Florida reached
out to other districts for investigatory assistance but
not for help negotiating the NPA. Dkt. No. 204-2. Nor
would direct approval of the NPA by the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General change the meaning of its
terms. No evidence suggests anyone promised Epstein
that the NPA would bar the prosecution of his co-
conspirators in other districts. Absent such a promise,
it does not matter who did or did not approve it.
Second Circuit precedent creates a strong presumption
that a plea agreement binds only the U.S. Attorney's
office for the district where it was signed. Maxwell
identifies nothing in the NPA's text or negotiation
history to disturb this presumption. The Court thus
concludes that the NPA does not bind the U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00000121