DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page40 of 93 27 Thus, Epstein’s NPA with the USAO-SDFL does not bar this prosecution of Maxwell, and Judge Na- than correctly denied the motions to dismiss.°® 3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Conduct a Hearing Finally, Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by denying her motions to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing. (Br.38-40). But as Judge Nathan explained, the cases cited by Maxwell in support of her request for a hearing “mostly involved oral agreements where there was no written record of the full set of terms reached by the parties,” and all of which “in- volved defendants with first-hand knowledge of the ne- gotiations.... This is no such case. The NPA’s terms are clear.” (A.145). Furthermore, Maxwell had “an un- usually large amount of information about the NPA’s negotiation history in the form of the OPR report yet 8 Even if the NPA were deemed to apply here, it would only cover Count Six, which concerns a victim known to USAO-SDFL and a statute mentioned in the NPA, and not Counts Three and Four, which concern different or additional victims and offenses over an ex- panded time period. Maxwell’s suggestion that the co- conspirator provision “is not limited to any particular offense or any time period” (Br.40) is based on the premise that the USAO-SDFL immunized Maxwell for any and all crimes, past or future, and highlights the unreasonableness of reading the NPA to apply to other U.S. Attorney’s Offices. DOJ-OGR-00021687