DOJ-OGR-00021686.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page39 of 93 26 approval of each affected U.S. Attorney’s Office before entering into any non-prosecution agreement that pur- ports to bind another district. See Justice Manual § 9- 27.641 (“No district or division shall make any agree- ment, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division with- out the approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the appropriate Assistant Attorney General.”). Finally, Maxwell devotes much of her brief to criti- cizing Annabti. (E.g., Br.18-23). But this Court’s rule is sound, as it ensures that a criminal defendant (or even, as here, a co-conspirator) will not receive the windfall of immunity that was never intended by the parties to the original agreement, while leaving par- ties free to enter into legitimate multi-district resolu- tions if they wish. Nor has Maxwell’s parade of horri- bles come to pass in the decades since Annabi was de- cided. Furthermore, the same rule has long been ap- plied in the Seventh Circuit. See Thompson v. United States, 431 F. App’x 491, 493 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rourke, 74 F.3d 802, 807 n.5 (7th Cir. 1996). In any event, this Court need not engage in a point-by- point analysis of the merits of Annabi, because it re- mains binding precedent. See United States v. Wilker- son, 361 F.3d 717, 732 (2d Cir. 2004) (Court is “bound by the decisions of prior panels until such time as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our Court or by the Supreme Court’). DOJ-OGR-00021686