DOJ-OGR-00000251.tif

7 It means recognizing that when the parties intended to mean “only in the Southern District of Florida,” they said so explicitly, and that their use of the all-encompassing term “the United States” in the co-conspirator clause was purposeful. The government’s invocation of “context” and the purported purpose of the NPA is no more persuasive. The government suggests that a broad grant of immunity cannot have been made because there was no consultation with the Southern District of New York. Opp.10. The record does not permit such a conclusion, as the district court denied a hearing and the Petitioner was not granted any discovery, so there is no way to confirm who was consulted. But the record is clear in any event that the NPA was signed on behalf of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, who was heavily involved in the negotiation and approval process. In addition, representatives of the Department of Justice were also actively involved in the drafting and approval process, including the Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department’s Criminal Division. OPR:27, 28, 84. If these officials failed to do what their internal policy suggested was appropriate, it is irrelevant. The provision in the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual advising U.S. Attorneys not to bind other districts was relevant in OPR’s review of the government attorneys’ actions in this case. It does not inform the outcome here, however, despite the government’s heavy reliance on it agreements to limit their scope when that is what they intend, and the burden is on them to be specific. When they decline to use simple narrowing terms, this Court should make clear that the broad language they use will be given its ordinary meaning. DOJ-OGR-00000251