{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16 of 32",
    "document_number": "293",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 16 of 32\n\nSDNY, from prosecuting Epstein's \"potential co-conspirators\" for the offenses covered by the NPA.7\n\nIn Annabi, the defendants were arrested at Kennedy Airport on November 23, 1982, in possession of four kilograms of heroin and were charged in a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York with (1) conspiracy to import heroin into the United States, (2) a substantive offense of importing heroin, and (3) possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Id. at 671. All three charges arose out of the defendants' arrest and the charged conduct was limited to November 23, 1982. Id. The defendants agreed to plead guilty to the substantive importation charge (Count Two) to resolve the case. Id. At the time of the plea, the prosecutor stated on the record that \"the only agreement that exists between the defendants and the Government is that at the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts as to each defendant.\" Id. Counts One and Three were dismissed at sentencing. Id.\n\nApproximately two-and-a-half years later, the defendants were charged in the Southern District of New York in a multi-count indictment that included one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin (Count One) and one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (Count Three). Id. Both counts alleged a broader period of criminal conduct occurring from October 1982 until March 15, 1985. Id. The defendants argued that their plea agreement with the Eastern District of New York barred their prosecution on Counts One and Three of the\n\n7 As argued in our initial motion, Ms. Maxwell maintains that, even if the Court applies Annabi, the NPA precludes the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for any offense she allegedly committed with Epstein. (See Dkt. 142 at 18-25; Dkt. 223 at 7-13). We preserve that argument and reassert it with respect to Counts One through Six of the S2 Indictment. However, in light of the Court's prior ruling that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges in the S1 Indictment, we argue here that the Court need not, and should not, apply Annabi to determine whether the NPA bars the USAO-SDNY from charging the offenses in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment.\n\n12\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004281",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 16 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SDNY, from prosecuting Epstein's \"potential co-conspirators\" for the offenses covered by the NPA.7\n\nIn Annabi, the defendants were arrested at Kennedy Airport on November 23, 1982, in possession of four kilograms of heroin and were charged in a three-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York with (1) conspiracy to import heroin into the United States, (2) a substantive offense of importing heroin, and (3) possession of heroin with intent to distribute. Id. at 671. All three charges arose out of the defendants' arrest and the charged conduct was limited to November 23, 1982. Id. The defendants agreed to plead guilty to the substantive importation charge (Count Two) to resolve the case. Id. At the time of the plea, the prosecutor stated on the record that \"the only agreement that exists between the defendants and the Government is that at the time of the imposition of sentence on Count Two, the Government would move to dismiss the two open remaining counts as to each defendant.\" Id. Counts One and Three were dismissed at sentencing. Id.\n\nApproximately two-and-a-half years later, the defendants were charged in the Southern District of New York in a multi-count indictment that included one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin (Count One) and one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (Count Three). Id. Both counts alleged a broader period of criminal conduct occurring from October 1982 until March 15, 1985. Id. The defendants argued that their plea agreement with the Eastern District of New York barred their prosecution on Counts One and Three of the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 As argued in our initial motion, Ms. Maxwell maintains that, even if the Court applies Annabi, the NPA precludes the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell for any offense she allegedly committed with Epstein. (See Dkt. 142 at 18-25; Dkt. 223 at 7-13). We preserve that argument and reassert it with respect to Counts One through Six of the S2 Indictment. However, in light of the Court's prior ruling that the NPA does not bind the USAO-SDNY as to the charges in the S1 Indictment, we argue here that the Court need not, and should not, apply Annabi to determine whether the NPA bars the USAO-SDNY from charging the offenses in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004281",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Kennedy Airport",
      "Eastern District of New York",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 23, 1982",
      "October 1982",
      "March 15, 1985",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293",
      "Dkt. 142",
      "Dkt. 223",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004281"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the application of a prior case (Annabi) to the current proceedings. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}