{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "document_number": "142",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 25 of 38\nmoved to dismiss a subsequent indictment in this District as barred by what they claimed was an\nearlier \"plea agreement\" in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. Id. The\nSecond Circuit, in affirming the denial, stated simply that \"[a] plea agreement binds only the\noffice of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it\naffirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\" Id. at 672.\nThus, not only is Annabi readily distinguishable from this case, but it explicitly\nrecognizes that plea agreements can be binding in other jurisdictions, and that a plea agreement\nthat has the \"affirmative appearance\" of broad applicability—as the NPA does here—will be\nenforced according to its terms. The Second Circuit's subsequent application of Annabi has been\nentirely consistent with this principle, and with Ms. Maxwell's position here. To the extent that\nAnnabi would preclude Ms. Maxwell from enforcing the NPA outside the SDFL, it is in conflict\nwith the likely resolution of the issue under Eleventh Circuit law, which should apply here.\na. There is an \"affirmative appearance\" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outside the SDFL.\nThe \"affirmative appearance\" contemplated by Annabi \"need not be an express\nstatement.\" United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). Here, the \"affirmative\nappearance\" that a broader restriction was intended is evident within the four corners of the\nNPA, when the NPA is reviewed as a whole. As noted above, the absence of any limiting\nlanguage in the co-conspirator immunity provision stands in sharp contrast to the NPA's\nprovision regarding the non-prosecution of Epstein, which is expressly limited to prosecution \"in\nthis District.\" NPA at 2. It is difficult to envision a clearer \"affirmative appearance\" than the\nexpress inclusion elsewhere in the agreement of a limitation that is conspicuously absent here.\nBasic principles of contract interpretation require an inference that the parties considered\nthe inclusion of the phrase \"in this District\" necessary to limit the scope of the non-prosecution\n20\nDOJ-OGR-00002597",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 25 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "moved to dismiss a subsequent indictment in this District as barred by what they claimed was an\nearlier \"plea agreement\" in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. Id. The\nSecond Circuit, in affirming the denial, stated simply that \"[a] plea agreement binds only the\noffice of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it\naffirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\" Id. at 672.\nThus, not only is Annabi readily distinguishable from this case, but it explicitly\nrecognizes that plea agreements can be binding in other jurisdictions, and that a plea agreement\nthat has the \"affirmative appearance\" of broad applicability—as the NPA does here—will be\nenforced according to its terms. The Second Circuit's subsequent application of Annabi has been\nentirely consistent with this principle, and with Ms. Maxwell's position here. To the extent that\nAnnabi would preclude Ms. Maxwell from enforcing the NPA outside the SDFL, it is in conflict\nwith the likely resolution of the issue under Eleventh Circuit law, which should apply here.\na. There is an \"affirmative appearance\" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outside the SDFL.\nThe \"affirmative appearance\" contemplated by Annabi \"need not be an express\nstatement.\" United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). Here, the \"affirmative\nappearance\" that a broader restriction was intended is evident within the four corners of the\nNPA, when the NPA is reviewed as a whole. As noted above, the absence of any limiting\nlanguage in the co-conspirator immunity provision stands in sharp contrast to the NPA's\nprovision regarding the non-prosecution of Epstein, which is expressly limited to prosecution \"in\nthis District.\" NPA at 2. It is difficult to envision a clearer \"affirmative appearance\" than the\nexpress inclusion elsewhere in the agreement of a limitation that is conspicuously absent here.\nBasic principles of contract interpretation require an inference that the parties considered\nthe inclusion of the phrase \"in this District\" necessary to limit the scope of the non-prosecution",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002597",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "United States Attorney",
      "Eleventh Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Eastern District",
      "SDFL",
      "District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "1986"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 142",
      "801 F.2d 624",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002597"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 25 of 38."
}