DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page31 of 93 18 party could enforce immunity agreement); see also United States v. Fla. W. Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (third party must show that “a direct and primary object of the contract- ing parties was to confer a benefit on the third party” (quoting Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005))). Here, Maxwell has failed to make the requisite showing: she is not named in the provision naming four potential co-conspirator (A.178), and she has offered no evidence that the par- ties to the NPA intended to confer a benefit on her spe- cifically. Accordingly, Maxwell may not enforce the NPA. 2. The NPA’s Terms Bind Only the USAO- SDFL Even if Maxwell had a right to invoke the NPA’s protections, it would not bar the charges in this case. By its terms, the NPA only applies to prosecutions brought by the USAO-SDFL. The agreement was signed “on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.” (A.175). And in exchange for Epstein’s plea in state court, the USAO-SDFL agreed to defer “prosecu- tion in this District”—that is, the Southern District of Florida. (A.175). The USAO-SDFL further promised that no prosecution by “the Federal Bureau of Investi- gation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office ... will be insti- tuted in this District.” (A.175). An agreement by the USAO-SDFL not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida is an agreement intended to apply only to the USAO-SDFL and only in the Southern Dis- trict of Florida. Moreover, the agreement was signed DOJ-OGR-00021678