{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "117",
    "date": "11/01/2024",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page11 of 51\npotential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals].\nA178.\nA unanimous panel of this Court applied the holding in Annabi, 771 F.2d. at 672, to the co-conspirator clause in the NPA to permit the prosecution of Maxwell, a beneficiary of that agreement, in the SDNY, notwithstanding that clause contained no limiting language. U.S. v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d. Cir. 2024). The Court, quoting Annabi held, 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 contemplates a broader restriction.\" Id at 263. The Court applied Annabi even though the NPA had been negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit where no such contrarian rule of construction exists and did so without benefit to Maxwell of discovery or an evidentiary hearing. The Court found that neither the plea agreement nor the \"negotiation history\" showed that the co-conspirator clause was \"meant to\" bind other districts. Yet the clause contained no limiting language and \"several witnesses told OPR that they believed the government's agreement not to prosecute unidentified \"potential co-conspirators\" amounted to \"transactional immunity\" (SA165). Notably, Maxwell was denied both discovery and a hearing and was therefore left to rely on the NPA and the OPR which was based on documents that were not shared with Maxwell and an investigation that did not include\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00021835",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page11 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals].\nA178.\nA unanimous panel of this Court applied the holding in Annabi, 771 F.2d. at 672, to the co-conspirator clause in the NPA to permit the prosecution of Maxwell, a beneficiary of that agreement, in the SDNY, notwithstanding that clause contained no limiting language. U.S. v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d. Cir. 2024). The Court, quoting Annabi held, 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 contemplates a broader restriction.\" Id at 263. The Court applied Annabi even though the NPA had been negotiated in the Eleventh Circuit where no such contrarian rule of construction exists and did so without benefit to Maxwell of discovery or an evidentiary hearing. The Court found that neither the plea agreement nor the \"negotiation history\" showed that the co-conspirator clause was \"meant to\" bind other districts. Yet the clause contained no limiting language and \"several witnesses told OPR that they believed the government's agreement not to prosecute unidentified \"potential co-conspirators\" amounted to \"transactional immunity\" (SA165). Notably, Maxwell was denied both discovery and a hearing and was therefore left to rely on the NPA and the OPR which was based on documents that were not shared with Maxwell and an investigation that did not include",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021835",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Annabi"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney",
      "SDNY",
      "OPR"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Eleventh Circuit"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/01/2024",
      "2024"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 117",
      "3636586",
      "Page11 of 51",
      "771 F.2d. at 672",
      "118 F.4th 256",
      "SA165",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021835"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the case of U.S. v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 11 of 51."
}