EPSTEIN
page 2 / 51 . OCR, unverified
the NPA was meant to bind the
Southern District of New York ...........
III. This case is an ideal vehicle for resolving
the split over this important and
recurring question ....................................
CONCLUSION ....................................................
APPENDIX
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page(s)
Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972) ............................... 8, 13, 14
Commonwealth v. Cosby,
666 Pa. 416, 252 A.3d 1092 (Pa. 2021) .....
In re Altro,
180 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1999) ......................
Margalli-Olvera v. Immigration and
Naturalization Service,
F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1994) ....................... 10, 15
Santobello v. New York,
404 U.S. 257 (1971) ................................. 7, 8, 13
Thomas v. Immigration and
Naturalization Service,
F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1994) ..................... 10, 11
Thompson v. United States,
431 F. App’x 491 (7th Cir. 2011) .............. 12, 16
United States v. Annabi,
771 F.2d. 670 (2d Cir. 1985) ..... 6, 11, 12, 16, 18
United States v. Carmichael,
216 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2000) ......................
United States v. Carter,
454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) ..................... 9, 10
United States v. Gebbie,
294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002) ......................
United States v. Johnston,
199 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................
United States v. Jordan,
509 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007) .....................
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
United States v. Maxwell,
118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024) .... 1, 6, 8, 12, 16-18
United States v. Maxwell,
534 F. Supp. 3d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ........
United States v. McDowell,
No. 94-CR-787-1, 2006 WL 1896074
(N.D. Ill. 2006) ..........................................
United States v. O’Doherty,
F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 2011) .......................
United States v. Rubbo,
396 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2005) .................
United States v. Transfiguracion,
442 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................
United States v. Van Thournout,
100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) ..................... 10, 14
United States v. Warner,
820 F.3d 678 (4th Cir. 2016) .....................
United States v. Williams,
102 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 1996) ..................... 14, 15
STATUTES
U.S.C. § 2255 ........................................... 2, 15
U.S.C. § 1254(l) ........................................
RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(b) ......................................
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of
Legal Texts (2012) .................................... 15, 17
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Justice Manual
(updated Feb. 2018), https://www.just
ice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-
prosecution ................................................
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully petitions for a writ
of certiorari to review the judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the Second Circuit (App.1) is reported
at United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir.
2024). The Second Circuit’s order denying Maxwell’s
petition for rehearing en banc (App.92) is not pub-
lished in the Federal Reporter. The district court’s
order denying Maxwell’s motion to dismiss (App.52) is
available at United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d
299 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
JURISDICTION
The Second Circuit issued its opinion on September
17, 2024. Maxwell’s motion for en banc review was
denied on November 25, 2024. This Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED
There are no pertinent constitutional or statutory
provisions involved in the matter at issue in this case.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agree-
ment promising in plain language that the United
States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of
Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted
Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey
Epstein.
Only because the United States did so in the Second
Circuit and not elsewhere, her motion to dismiss the
indictment was denied, her trial proceeded, and she
is now serving a 20 year sentence. In light of
the disparity in how the circuit courts interpret the
enforceability of a promise made by the “United
States,” Maxwell’s motion to dismiss would have
been granted if she had been charged in at least four
other circuits (plus the Eleventh, where Epstein’s
agreement was entered into). This inconsistency in the
law by which the same promise by the United States
means different things in different places should be
addressed by this Court.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
In September 2007, after an extended period of
negotiation with high-level representatives of the
United States that included Main Justice, Jeffrey