mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021080.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page33 of 113\nthis result was highly counterintuitive, acknowledging that \"[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....\" Id. at 672. Nevertheless, the Court declared, “the law has evolved to the contrary,” adding, “[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. The Court concluded that, because the conspiracy alleged in the SDNY indictment “extended for an additional two years” beyond the date of the conspiracy alleged in the EDNY indictment, “the new charges are sufficiently distinct at least to warrant application of [this] rule concerning construction of plea agreements.” Id.\nAnnabi has been sharply criticized. One circuit said it was “unable to discern a sound basis for the [Annabi] rule,” adding that the decision “really has no analytically sound foundation.” U.S. v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 547 (3d Cir. 2002). Annabi cited three prior cases from this Circuit in support of its statement that “[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered.” 771 F.2d at 672 (citing U.S. v. Abbamonte, 759 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139 (2d Cir. 1976); and U.S. v.\n18\nDOJ-OGR-00021080",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page33 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "this result was highly counterintuitive, acknowledging that \"[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....\" Id. at 672. Nevertheless, the Court declared, “the law has evolved to the contrary,” adding, “[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. The Court concluded that, because the conspiracy alleged in the SDNY indictment “extended for an additional two years” beyond the date of the conspiracy alleged in the EDNY indictment, “the new charges are sufficiently distinct at least to warrant application of [this] rule concerning construction of plea agreements.” Id.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Annabi has been sharply criticized. One circuit said it was “unable to discern a sound basis for the [Annabi] rule,” adding that the decision “really has no analytically sound foundation.” U.S. v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 547 (3d Cir. 2002). Annabi cited three prior cases from this Circuit in support of its statement that “[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered.” 771 F.2d at 672 (citing U.S. v. Abbamonte, 759 F.2d 1065 (2d Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Alessi, 544 F.2d 1139 (2d Cir. 1976); and U.S. v.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021080",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "1985",
      "1976",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021080"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely from a federal court case. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is page 33 of 113."
}