{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "41",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 41 of 239\nincluding any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.'\nGovernment Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 11 n.11 (S.D. Fla.) (quoting United States Attorney's Manual, 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests)). Significantly, this brief was signed by the same prosecutor who negotiated and signed the NPA. Id. Although the defendant makes the sweeping, self-serving, and unsupported allegation that \"the government had every reason to foresee a potential prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators in this District and, after multiple layers of review within the Department of Justice, intended to agree to preclude it,\" the USAO-SDFL's brief says otherwise. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). Further still, the record developed in both civil litigation and OPR's investigation does not support this claim.\n***\nAs the foregoing makes clear, the defendant has failed to produce any evidence that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that other districts would be bound by the NPA. There is no \"affirmative appearance\" that the NPA binds other districts, and the motion should be denied. Under Annabi and its progeny, the defendant has failed to establish that the NPA binds other districts. For this reason alone, the defendant's motion should be dismissed, in keeping with the well-established law in this Circuit.8\n8 In her motion, the defendant asks this Court to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of-federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23-25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no authority for the proposition that federal plea agreements are governed by the choice of law principles that apply to conflicting state laws. Annabi is the binding law of this Circuit, and this Court must apply it.\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00002975",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 41 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.'",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 11 n.11 (S.D. Fla.) (quoting United States Attorney's Manual, 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests)). Significantly, this brief was signed by the same prosecutor who negotiated and signed the NPA. Id. Although the defendant makes the sweeping, self-serving, and unsupported allegation that \"the government had every reason to foresee a potential prosecution of Epstein's co-conspirators in this District and, after multiple layers of review within the Department of Justice, intended to agree to preclude it,\" the USAO-SDFL's brief says otherwise. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). Further still, the record developed in both civil litigation and OPR's investigation does not support this claim.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "***",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the foregoing makes clear, the defendant has failed to produce any evidence that the USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that other districts would be bound by the NPA. There is no \"affirmative appearance\" that the NPA binds other districts, and the motion should be denied. Under Annabi and its progeny, the defendant has failed to establish that the NPA binds other districts. For this reason alone, the defendant's motion should be dismissed, in keeping with the well-established law in this Circuit.8",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 In her motion, the defendant asks this Court to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of-federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23-25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no authority for the proposition that federal plea agreements are governed by the choice of law principles that apply to conflicting state laws. Annabi is the binding law of this Circuit, and this Court must apply it.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002975",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "Eleventh Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "08 Civ. 80736 (KAM)",
      "Dkt. No. 205-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002975"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. [defendant]. The text discusses the defendant's motion and the government's response, referencing various legal precedents and court documents."
}