mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021838.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "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, Page14 of 51\n\nadding, \"[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.\n\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).\n\nAnnabi cited three prior cases from this Circuit in support of the rule. 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. Papa, 533 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1976)). But, as Gebbie explained, Annabi misread this Court's precedent and fashioned an \"illogical\" rule out of whole cloth:\n\nThe first case cited in Annabi is Abbamonte, but Abbamonte merely relies upon the other two cases cited in Annabi—Alessi and Papa ... The court in Alessi relies upon Papa, which is a related case. ...\n\nPapa, however, provides no support for the rule the Second Circuit follows. ... Although Papa held that the plea agreement did not bind other districts because the evidence revealed an intent to bind only one district, the Second Circuit apparently has broadly interpreted this case as meaning that plea agreements do not bind other districts absent an 9\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021838",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page14 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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": "top"
    },
    {
      "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).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Annabi cited three prior cases from this Circuit in support of the rule. 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. Papa, 533 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1976)). But, as Gebbie explained, Annabi misread this Court's precedent and fashioned an \"illogical\" rule out of whole cloth:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The first case cited in Annabi is Abbamonte, but Abbamonte merely relies upon the other two cases cited in Annabi—Alessi and Papa ... The court in Alessi relies upon Papa, which is a related case. ...",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Papa, however, provides no support for the rule the Second Circuit follows. ... Although Papa held that the plea agreement did not bind other districts because the evidence revealed an intent to bind only one district, the Second Circuit apparently has broadly interpreted this case as meaning that plea agreements do not bind other districts absent an",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021838",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Third Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/01/2024",
      "1985",
      "1976"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "117",
      "3636586",
      "294 F.3d 540",
      "771 F.2d",
      "759 F.2d 1065",
      "544 F.2d 1139",
      "533 F.2d 815",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021838"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a legal brief or opinion, discussing the Annabi rule and its application to plea agreements. The text is dense and technical, suggesting a formal legal document."
}