{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "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 12 of 38\n\nUnited States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). Annabi supports dismissal here by confirming that where, as here, both the text of the NPA and the facts and circumstances of the underlying negotiations demonstrate an intent to bind the United States (other USAOs), they are so bound. Alternatively, any application of Annabi that limits the NPA's effect to the SDFL would conflict with the likely interpretation of the NPA by the Eleventh Circuit, which should apply in case of any such conflict.\n\nThird, the government argues that the co-conspirator immunity provision prohibits only prosecutions for (i) conduct between 2001 and 2007 and (ii) statutory offenses specifically referenced in the factual recitals to the NPA. Again, the co-conspirator immunity provision contains no such limitations and thus forecloses this argument. The text is clear, but even if it were ambiguous, it must be strictly construed against the government.\n\nIn the alternative, to the extent there is any doubt that the NPA bars this prosecution, the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA at least raise sufficient issues regarding the parties' intent to warrant discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Accordingly, if the indictment is not dismissed, Ms. Maxwell requests leave to conduct discovery as to the intent of the parties to the NPA with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision, as well as an evidentiary hearing in aid of this Motion.\n\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS\n\nOn or about September 24, 2007, Epstein and his counsel entered into the NPA with Acosta, the United States Attorney for the SDFL.2 While USAOs in a number of judicial districts, including this District, typically use a standard template for plea agreements and other non-prosecution agreements, this NPA did not follow such a standard format. To the contrary,\n\n2 A copy of the NPA is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n\n7\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002584",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). Annabi supports dismissal here by confirming that where, as here, both the text of the NPA and the facts and circumstances of the underlying negotiations demonstrate an intent to bind the United States (other USAOs), they are so bound. Alternatively, any application of Annabi that limits the NPA's effect to the SDFL would conflict with the likely interpretation of the NPA by the Eleventh Circuit, which should apply in case of any such conflict.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, the government argues that the co-conspirator immunity provision prohibits only prosecutions for (i) conduct between 2001 and 2007 and (ii) statutory offenses specifically referenced in the factual recitals to the NPA. Again, the co-conspirator immunity provision contains no such limitations and thus forecloses this argument. The text is clear, but even if it were ambiguous, it must be strictly construed against the government.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the alternative, to the extent there is any doubt that the NPA bars this prosecution, the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA at least raise sufficient issues regarding the parties' intent to warrant discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Accordingly, if the indictment is not dismissed, Ms. Maxwell requests leave to conduct discovery as to the intent of the parties to the NPA with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision, as well as an evidentiary hearing in aid of this Motion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "STATEMENT OF FACTS",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On or about September 24, 2007, Epstein and his counsel entered into the NPA with Acosta, the United States Attorney for the SDFL.2 While USAOs in a number of judicial districts, including this District, typically use a standard template for plea agreements and other non-prosecution agreements, this NPA did not follow such a standard format. To the contrary,",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 A copy of the NPA is attached hereto as Exhibit A.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002584",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Acosta",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "USAOs",
      "SDFL",
      "Eleventh Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "September 24, 2007",
      "2001",
      "2007",
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 142",
      "771 F.2d 670",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002584"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a page number at the bottom. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}