EPSTEIN
page 13 / 1261 . OCR, unverified
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000037.tif.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000037.tif
----------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED... eeeeeees
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS...
RELATED PROCEEDINGS ..00.. eects
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES /... eects
OPINIONS BELOW .... eee eeeseeessneeeesneeeeeenees
JURISDICTION 0000. eeeeeeeseeeeesneeeesseeeeeees
CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED......
STATEMENT OF THE CASE oo eee
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND...
A.
B.
C.
Entry of the Non-Prosecution Agree-
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION..
I.
The circuits are split as to whether a
promise on behalf of the “United States”
or the “Government” by a United States
Attorney’s office in one district is binding
upon United States Attorney’s offices in
Other districts ...............cccscessssssssssssssssssseees
(iii)
Page
i
i
al
DOJ-OGR-00000037
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000037.tif.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000038.tif.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000038.tif
----------------------------------------
II.
lv
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
A. The Third, Fourth, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits have faithfully applied
Santobello’s instruction that promises
in plea agreements must be binding
on the government, applying basic
principles of contract law to find that
obligations entered into on behalf of
the “United States” or the
“Government” apply to the federal
government throughout the nation ....
B. The Second and the Seventh Circuits
apply the opposite presumption. They
refuse to enforce a promise made on
behalf of the “United States” or “the
Government” except against the
particular United States Attorney’s
office which entered into the
agreement, unless the agreement
expressly reiterates that the term
“United States” does in fact mean the
entire country as a whole................006
The Second Circuit's decision below is
wrong and violates the principles set
forth in this Court’s prior opinions ..........
A. Both Annabi and the opinion below
were wrongly decided under
Santobello and Giglio ...........ccccccccceeeeee
B. Ordinary principles of contract
interpretation compel Annabi and
Maxwell to be reversed.............:::0000008
Page
11
12
13
14
DOJ-OGR- 00000038
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000038.tif.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000039.tif.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000039.tif
----------------------------------------
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
C. The available evidence suggests that
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
YECULTINE QUESTION ...........ccccceesseeceeeeeeeeeeees
CONCLUSION ooo. eeecceeseeeeesneeeeesaeeeesaneeenaees
APPENDIX
Page
16
DOJ-OGR-00000039
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000039.tif.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000040.tif.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000040.tif
----------------------------------------
al
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page(s)
Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972)... cccccceeeeeeeeeees 8, 13, 14
Commonwealth v. Cosby,
666 Pa. 416, 252 A.3d 1092 (Pa. 2021)..... 14
In re Altro,
180 F.3d 372 (2d Cir. 1999)... ee 16
Margalli-Olvera v. Immigration and
Naturalization Service,
43 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1994)... 10, 15
Santobello v. New York,
404 U.S. 257 (1971)... cccccccccceeeeeeeeeees 7, 8,13
Thomas v. Immigration and
Naturalization Service,
35 F.3d 13832 (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).............. ee 16
United States v. Carter,
454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972)... 9, 10
United States v. Gebbie,
294 F.3d 540 (8d Cir. 2002).............. eee 9
United States v. Johnston,
199 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1999)... 11
United States v. Jordan,
509 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007)...............00000 14
DOJ-OGR-00000040
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000040.tif.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000041.tif.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000041.tif
----------------------------------------
vil
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)........ 1
United States v. McDowell,
No. 94-CR-787-1, 2006 WL 1896074
(N.D. Tl]. 2006) ......... ee eeeeeeeeeesessseeeeeees 12
United States v. O’Doherty,
64 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 2011)... eee 16