mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021686.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page39 of 93\n\n26\n\napproval of each affected U.S. Attorney's Office before entering into any non-prosecution agreement that purports to bind another district. See Justice Manual § 9-27.641 (\"No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the appropriate Assistant Attorney General.\")\n\nFinally, Maxwell devotes much of her brief to criticizing Annabi. (E.g., Br.18-23). But this Court's rule is sound, as it ensures that a criminal defendant (or even, as here, a co-conspirator) will not receive the windfall of immunity that was never intended by the parties to the original agreement, while leaving parties free to enter into legitimate multi-district resolutions if they wish. Nor has Maxwell's parade of horribles come to pass in the decades since Annabi was decided. Furthermore, the same rule has long been applied in the Seventh Circuit. See Thompson v. United States, 431 F. App'x 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rourke, 74 F.3d 802, 807 n.5 (7th Cir. 1996).\n\nIn any event, this Court need not engage in a point-by-point analysis of the merits of Annabi, because it remains binding precedent. See United States v. Wilkinson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004) (Court is \"bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court\").\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021686",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page39 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "approval of each affected U.S. Attorney's Office before entering into any non-prosecution agreement that purports to bind another district. See Justice Manual § 9-27.641 (\"No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the appropriate Assistant Attorney General.\")",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, Maxwell devotes much of her brief to criticizing Annabi. (E.g., Br.18-23). But this Court's rule is sound, as it ensures that a criminal defendant (or even, as here, a co-conspirator) will not receive the windfall of immunity that was never intended by the parties to the original agreement, while leaving parties free to enter into legitimate multi-district resolutions if they wish. Nor has Maxwell's parade of horribles come to pass in the decades since Annabi was decided. Furthermore, the same rule has long been applied in the Seventh Circuit. See Thompson v. United States, 431 F. App'x 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rourke, 74 F.3d 802, 807 n.5 (7th Cir. 1996).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In any event, this Court need not engage in a point-by-point analysis of the merits of Annabi, because it remains binding precedent. See United States v. Wilkinson, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004) (Court is \"bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021686",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Annabi"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Justice Manual",
      "Seventh Circuit",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "2011",
      "1996",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "79",
      "3536060",
      "9-27.641",
      "Br.18-23",
      "431 F. App'x 491",
      "74 F.3d 802",
      "361 F.3d 717",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021686"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely a brief or memorandum, discussing legal precedents and procedures related to non-prosecution agreements and multi-district resolutions. The text is well-formatted and free of handwritten notes or stamps."
}