mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021085.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "38",
    "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, Page38 of 113\nagreements, which do not require resort to Annabi's canon of construction),4 or for points unrelated to whether an agreement with one USAO will bind another,5 or—in one case—in an unpublished decision that provided too little information to clarify whether the plea agreement as a whole was ambiguous.6 Annabi is an island of a case—without friends in other circuits, or this one.\nAnnabi's analytical faults7 counsel strongly against extending it to new facts or contexts. Cf. Egbert v. Boule, 142 S.Ct. 1793, 1803 (2022) (where underlying\n4 See U.S. v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. Sept. 2, 2010) (agreement stated it was \"limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities\"); U.S. v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. Apr. 6, 2009) (agreement, \"by its express terms, bound only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia\"); U.S. v. Gonzales, 93 F. App'x 268, 271 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2004) (agreement \"explicitly states that the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico\"); U.S. v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 119, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (\"[T]his agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and cannot bind other federal, state or local prosecuting authorities.\"); U.S. v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986) (\"[W]e need not resolve the question whether the Southern District is bound by this particular plea agreement...\"); U.S. v. Persico, 774 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985), aff'g 620 F.Supp. 836, 846 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (\"Persico's plea agreement explicitly states that it 'is binding on the United States only in [the Eastern] district\") (brackets in original).\n5 See U.S. v. Reiter, 848 F.2d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 1988) (discussing double jeopardy issue); U.S. v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 923 (2d Cir. 1988) (plea agreement and later charges arose in the same district, unlike Annabi); U.S. v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1321-22 (2d Cir. 1987) (case related to Annabi itself).\n6 See U.S. v. Brown, Nos. 99-1230(L), 99-1762, 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002).\n7 Appellant preserves her argument that Annabi should be overruled or abrogated.\n23\nDOJ-OGR-00021085",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page38 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "agreements, which do not require resort to Annabi's canon of construction),4 or for points unrelated to whether an agreement with one USAO will bind another,5 or—in one case—in an unpublished decision that provided too little information to clarify whether the plea agreement as a whole was ambiguous.6 Annabi is an island of a case—without friends in other circuits, or this one.\nAnnabi's analytical faults7 counsel strongly against extending it to new facts or contexts. Cf. Egbert v. Boule, 142 S.Ct. 1793, 1803 (2022) (where underlying",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 See U.S. v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. Sept. 2, 2010) (agreement stated it was \"limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities\"); U.S. v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. Apr. 6, 2009) (agreement, \"by its express terms, bound only the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia\"); U.S. v. Gonzales, 93 F. App'x 268, 271 (2d Cir. Mar. 24, 2004) (agreement \"explicitly states that the agreement binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico\"); U.S. v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 119, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (\"[T]his agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and cannot bind other federal, state or local prosecuting authorities.\"); U.S. v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986) (\"[W]e need not resolve the question whether the Southern District is bound by this particular plea agreement...\"); U.S. v. Persico, 774 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985), aff'g 620 F.Supp. 836, 846 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (\"Persico's plea agreement explicitly states that it 'is binding on the United States only in [the Eastern] district\") (brackets in original).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 See U.S. v. Reiter, 848 F.2d 336, 340 (2d Cir. 1988) (discussing double jeopardy issue); U.S. v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 923 (2d Cir. 1988) (plea agreement and later charges arose in the same district, unlike Annabi); U.S. v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1321-22 (2d Cir. 1987) (case related to Annabi itself).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 See U.S. v. Brown, Nos. 99-1230(L), 99-1762, 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 Appellant preserves her argument that Annabi should be overruled or abrogated.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021085",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Jersey",
      "Virginia",
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "Sept. 2, 2010",
      "Apr. 6, 2009",
      "Mar. 24, 2004",
      "1988",
      "1987",
      "Apr. 26, 2002",
      "1985",
      "1986"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021085"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The text is dense and includes numerous citations to case law and statutory authority. There are no visible redactions or damages to the document."
}