DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
753 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (appellate brief/opinion)
File Size:
753 KB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a legal filing (dated December 2, 2024) related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein was geographically limited to the Southern District of Florida and does not bind the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) or prevent them from prosecuting Maxwell. It cites the legal precedent 'United States v. Annabi' to support the claim that plea agreements do not automatically bind other districts unless affirmatively stated.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Contends that the Annabi precedent should not apply; arguing the NPA bars her prosecution.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of NPA |
Mentioned regarding his obligations under the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA).
|
| Annabi | Legal Precedent Subject |
Referenced in case law (United States v. Annabi) regarding plea agreements.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; prosecuted Maxwell.
|
|
| Southern District of Florida |
The district where the original NPA was negotiated and executed.
|
|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Mentioned in the quoted text of the NPA regarding the joint investigation.
|
|
| United States Attorney’s Office |
Mentioned in the quoted text of the NPA.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in footnotes.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Prior to prosecution
Negotiation and execution of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
Southern District of Florida
Jeffrey Epstein
USAO Southern District of Florida
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location where the NPA was executed and limited to.
|
|
|
Cited in case law (Prisco).
|
|
|
Cited in case law (Gonzalez).
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell arguing that Epstein's NPA protects her from prosecution.
Maxwell challenging her prosecution by USAO-SDNY.
Key Quotes (4)
"Applying Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
Quote #1
"There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
Quote #2
"Instead, where the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
Quote #3
"After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement... nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021887.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,201 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page10 of 26
contemplates a broader restriction.”11 And while Maxwell contends
that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed
outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.12 Applying
Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution
by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows
that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where
the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the
Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein
fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district:
that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed
outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.12 Applying
Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution
by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows
that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where
the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the
Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein
fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district:
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1
and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been
the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any
Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1
and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been
the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any
11 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). We recognize that circuits have
been split on this issue for decades. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir.
1986); United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 550 (3d Cir. 2002).
been split on this issue for decades. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir.
1986); United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 550 (3d Cir. 2002).
12 See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order)
(applying Annabi to plea agreement entered into in the District of New Jersey); United States
v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (same, to agreement entered
into in the District of New Mexico). Nor does Annabi, as Maxwell contends, apply only
where subsequent charges are “sufficiently distinct” from charges covered by an earlier
agreement. In Annabi, this Court rejected an interpretation of a prior plea agreement that
rested on the Double Jeopardy Clause, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause
applied, the subsequent charges were “sufficiently distinct” and therefore fell outside the
Clause’s protections. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This Court did not, however, conclude that the
rule of construction it announced depended on the similarities between earlier and
subsequent charges.
(applying Annabi to plea agreement entered into in the District of New Jersey); United States
v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (same, to agreement entered
into in the District of New Mexico). Nor does Annabi, as Maxwell contends, apply only
where subsequent charges are “sufficiently distinct” from charges covered by an earlier
agreement. In Annabi, this Court rejected an interpretation of a prior plea agreement that
rested on the Double Jeopardy Clause, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause
applied, the subsequent charges were “sufficiently distinct” and therefore fell outside the
Clause’s protections. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This Court did not, however, conclude that the
rule of construction it announced depended on the similarities between earlier and
subsequent charges.
10
DOJ-OGR-00021887
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document