{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32",
    "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 32 of 239\n\n1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts\n\nTurning first to the text of the NPA, the terms of the agreement do not contain an \"affirmative appearance\" that the parties who signed the NPA intended to bind any other U.S. Attorney's Office. To begin with, there can be no dispute that only representatives of the USAO-SDFL signed the agreement. There is no signature block for, nor specific mention of, any other district or component of the Department of Justice.\n\nIn her motion, the defendant argues that the words \"United States\" in the NPA evince an intent to bind the entire United States Government. (Def. Mot. 1 at 18). But the Second Circuit has rejected this very argument: \"[t]he mere use of the term 'government' in the plea agreement does not create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement.\" Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This rule also extends to plea agreements that use the term \"United States.\" See United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts \"even if the plea agreement purports to bind 'the Government'\" or the \"United States\"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (\"The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase 'United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL.\").\n\nAs the Second Circuit first explained in Annabi, plea agreements apply only in the district in which they are executed, absent evidence that the parties agreed to broader restrictions:\n\nAs an original proposition, a plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that 'the Government' will dismiss counts of an indictment . . . might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002966",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 32 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Turning first to the text of the NPA, the terms of the agreement do not contain an \"affirmative appearance\" that the parties who signed the NPA intended to bind any other U.S. Attorney's Office. To begin with, there can be no dispute that only representatives of the USAO-SDFL signed the agreement. There is no signature block for, nor specific mention of, any other district or component of the Department of Justice.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In her motion, the defendant argues that the words \"United States\" in the NPA evince an intent to bind the entire United States Government. (Def. Mot. 1 at 18). But the Second Circuit has rejected this very argument: \"[t]he mere use of the term 'government' in the plea agreement does not create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement.\" Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This rule also extends to plea agreements that use the term \"United States.\" See United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230, 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts \"even if the plea agreement purports to bind 'the Government'\" or the \"United States\"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (\"The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase 'United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL.\").",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Second Circuit first explained in Annabi, plea agreements apply only in the district in which they are executed, absent evidence that the parties agreed to broader restrictions:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As an original proposition, a plea agreement whereby a federal prosecutor agrees that 'the Government' will dismiss counts of an indictment . . . might be thought to bar the United States from reprosecuting the dismissed charges in any judicial district unless the agreement expressly limits the scope of the agreement to the",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002966",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "United States Government",
      "Second Circuit",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "United States Attorney's Offices"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Apr. 26, 2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Def. Mot. 1 at 18",
      "152 F.3d at 120",
      "No. 99-1230",
      "2002 WL 34244994",
      "159 F. Supp. 3d 311",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002966"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}