{ "document_metadata": { "page_number": "23", "document_number": "20-2200330-PAE", "date": null, "document_type": "Court Document", "has_handwriting": false, "has_stamps": false }, "full_text": "Case 20-2200330-PAE Document 178 Filed 02/12/21 Page 23 of 26 District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION 1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell's arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.9 In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which \"the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.\"10 We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY. It is well established in our Circuit that \"[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement 9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). 10 A-178. 9 DOJ-OGR-00014859", "text_blocks": [ { "type": "printed", "content": "Case 20-2200330-PAE Document 178 Filed 02/12/21 Page 23 of 26", "position": "header" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed.", "position": "top" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "II. DISCUSSION", "position": "top" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY", "position": "top" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell's arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.9", "position": "middle" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which \"the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.\"10 We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY.", "position": "middle" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "It is well established in our Circuit that \"[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement", "position": "middle" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). 10 A-178.", "position": "footer" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "9 DOJ-OGR-00014859", "position": "footer" } ], "entities": { "people": [ "Epstein", "Maxwell" ], "organizations": [ "USAO-SDFL", "USAO-SDNY", "United States Attorney" ], "locations": [], "dates": [ "02/12/21", "2018" ], "reference_numbers": [ "20-2200330-PAE", "178", "910 F.3d 11", "A-178", "DOJ-OGR-00014859" ] }, "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document from a legal case involving Maxwell and Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read." }