DOJ-OGR-00021858.jpg

Gasse22714226 Doccnneen tl 0971 10901722044 3866886 / Haags4106646 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 actions of USAO-SDFL do not indicate that the NPA was intended to bind other districts. The United States Attorney’s Manual that was operable during the negotiations of the NPA required that: No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of 18 A-175 (emphasis added). The agreement's scope is also limited in an additional section: THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. Id. (emphasis added). 14 See United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). 11 DOJ-OGR-00021858