mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021836.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "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, Page12 of 51\ninterviewing Epstein's lawyers. Notably, the prosecutors could not recall why the clause had been added, much less who it was meant to immunize. SA104-106.\nThe Court also relied on the United States Attorneys' Manual's directive that districts not bind other districts without the express written approval of the United States Attorneys in the affected districts and the Judiciary Act of 1789 to suggest that US Attorneys are \"cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.\" 118 F.4th at 265. Notably, the Manual also contains an admonition that USAOs who do not wish to bind USAOs in other districts explicitly limit the scope of an NPA to their districts. Justice Manual 9-27-630. This admonition implicitly acknowledges that AUSAs can bind other districts and that it is the obligation of the government to make explicit any limitation in the scope of immunity.\nARGUMENT\nEN BANC REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANNABI'S CANON OF CONSTRUCTION FOR PLEA AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE OVERRULED OR LIMITED\nThe Panel based its decision on Annabi. Annabi should be overruled because its canon of construction for interpreting plea agreements conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other circuits that have addressed the issue and stands in tension with what the Supreme Court and this Circuit have written about plea and immunity agreements.\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00021836",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 117, 11/01/2024, 3636586, Page12 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "interviewing Epstein's lawyers. Notably, the prosecutors could not recall why the clause had been added, much less who it was meant to immunize. SA104-106.\nThe Court also relied on the United States Attorneys' Manual's directive that districts not bind other districts without the express written approval of the United States Attorneys in the affected districts and the Judiciary Act of 1789 to suggest that US Attorneys are \"cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.\" 118 F.4th at 265. Notably, the Manual also contains an admonition that USAOs who do not wish to bind USAOs in other districts explicitly limit the scope of an NPA to their districts. Justice Manual 9-27-630. This admonition implicitly acknowledges that AUSAs can bind other districts and that it is the obligation of the government to make explicit any limitation in the scope of immunity.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "EN BANC REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANNABI'S CANON OF CONSTRUCTION FOR PLEA AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE OVERRULED OR LIMITED",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Panel based its decision on Annabi. Annabi should be overruled because its canon of construction for interpreting plea agreements conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other circuits that have addressed the issue and stands in tension with what the Supreme Court and this Circuit have written about plea and immunity agreements.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021836",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorneys",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/01/2024"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 117",
      "3636586",
      "SA104-106",
      "118 F.4th at 265",
      "Justice Manual 9-27-630",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021836"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Epstein. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal arguments and references various legal documents and precedents."
}