DOJ-OGR-00014859.jpg

CaseQa20-2200830-PAEIm doduhent1781212 0 Fil ab 32 702/24 agPageD 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-00014859