EPSTEIN
page 4 / 1261 . OCR, unverified
assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance,
supervisor, teacher, or family member.
See A-299, A-310.
DOJ-OGR-00000009
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000009.jpg.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page9 of 26
District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special
assessment. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar
Maxwell’s Prosecution by USAO-SDNY
Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the
grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL
immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party
beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting
Maxwell’s arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a
motion to dismiss an indictment.?
In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY,
Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which “the United States [ ]
agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any
potential co-conspirators of Epstein.”!° We hold that the NPA with
USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY.
It is well established in our Circuit that “[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
9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018).
10 A-178.
DOJ-OGR-00000010
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000010.jpg.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page10 of 26
contemplates a broader restriction.”" And while Maxwell contends
that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed
outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.’* Applying
Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution
by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows
that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where
the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the
Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein
fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district:
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1
and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been
the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any
"/ United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). We recognize that circuits have
been split on this issue for decades. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir.
1986); United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 550 (3d Cir. 2002).
2 See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order)
(applying Annabi to plea agreement entered into in the District of New Jersey); United States
v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (same, to agreement entered
into in the District of New Mexico). Nor does Annabi, as Maxwell contends, apply only
where subsequent charges are “sufficiently distinct” from charges covered by an earlier
agreement. In Annabi, this Court rejected an interpretation of a prior plea agreement that
rested on the Double Jeopardy Clause, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause
applied, the subsequent charges were “sufficiently distinct” and therefore fell outside the
Clause’s protections. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This Court did not, however, conclude that the
rule of construction it announced depended on the similarities between earlier and
subsequent charges.
10
DOJ-OGR-00000011
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000011.jpg.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000012.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000012.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page11 of 26
offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation
will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein
if any, will be dismissed."
The only language in the NPA that speaks to the agreement’s scope is
limiting language.
The negotiation history of the NPA, just as the text, fails to show
that the agreement was intended to bind other districts. Under our
Court’s precedent, the negotiation history of an NPA can support an
inference that an NPA “affirmatively” binds other districts.’ Yet, the