mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021844.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "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, Page20 of 51\n\nId. Here, the USAO-SDNY charged Appellant under Count Six with conduct from 2001 through 2004 that falls entirely within the 2001-2007 offense period contemplated by the NPA.\n\nThird, Annabi should apply only if there are no “affirmative” indications whatsoever that the plea agreement was intended to bind other USAOs. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671; Alessi, 544 F.2d at 1154; Papa, 533 F.2d at 823-25. That is not the case here. Appellant produced ample evidence that the NPA was intended to bind other USAOs. See Appellant’s Principal Brief at 33-38. The investigation itself suggests it was meant to bind the SDNY, in particular, because the investigation was active in the SDNY at the time the NPA was negotiated. SA72, 84, 86, 127. See Doc 293 at 16. Defense counsel understood the plea agreement to provide “genuine finality.” SA118. This reasonable understanding, supported by the NPA itself and the limited negotiation history contained in the one-sided OPR was sufficient to preclude application of Annabi.\n\nFourth, at most, Annabi should apply, if at all, only after the court permits discovery and conducts an evidentiary hearing. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671; Papa, 533 F.2d at 823. Here, appellant was denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing.\n\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00021844",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page20 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. Here, the USAO-SDNY charged Appellant under Count Six with conduct from 2001 through 2004 that falls entirely within the 2001-2007 offense period contemplated by the NPA.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, Annabi should apply only if there are no “affirmative” indications whatsoever that the plea agreement was intended to bind other USAOs. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671; Alessi, 544 F.2d at 1154; Papa, 533 F.2d at 823-25. That is not the case here. Appellant produced ample evidence that the NPA was intended to bind other USAOs. See Appellant’s Principal Brief at 33-38. The investigation itself suggests it was meant to bind the SDNY, in particular, because the investigation was active in the SDNY at the time the NPA was negotiated. SA72, 84, 86, 127. See Doc 293 at 16. Defense counsel understood the plea agreement to provide “genuine finality.” SA118. This reasonable understanding, supported by the NPA itself and the limited negotiation history contained in the one-sided OPR was sufficient to preclude application of Annabi.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fourth, at most, Annabi should apply, if at all, only after the court permits discovery and conducts an evidentiary hearing. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 671; Papa, 533 F.2d at 823. Here, appellant was denied discovery and an evidentiary hearing.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021844",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "SDNY",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2001",
      "2004",
      "11/01/2024"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "117",
      "3636586",
      "20",
      "51",
      "771 F.2d",
      "544 F.2d",
      "533 F.2d",
      "33-38",
      "72",
      "84",
      "86",
      "127",
      "293",
      "16",
      "118",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021844"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a legal case, with references to various legal precedents and documents. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}