DOJ-OGR-00002597.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 25 of 38 moved to dismiss a subsequent indictment in this District as barred by what they claimed was an earlier “plea agreement” in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. /d. The Second Circuit, in affirming the denial, stated simply that “[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.” Jd. at 672. Thus, not only is Annabi readily distinguishable from this case, but it explicitly recognizes that plea agreements can be binding in other jurisdictions, and that a plea agreement that has the “affirmative appearance” of broad applicability—as the NPA does here—will be enforced according to its terms. The Second Circuit’s subsequent application of Annabi has been entirely consistent with this principle, and with Ms. Maxwell’s position here. To the extent that Annabi would preclude Ms. Maxwell from enforcing the NPA outside the SDFL, it is in conflict with the likely resolution of the issue under Eleventh Circuit law, which should apply here. a. There is an “affirmative appearance” that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outside the SDFL. The “affirmative appearance” contemplated by Annabi “need not be an express statement.” United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). Here, the “affirmative appearance” that a broader restriction was intended is evident within the four corners of the NPA, when the NPA is reviewed as a whole. As noted above, the absence of any limiting language in the co-conspirator immunity provision stands in sharp contrast to the NPA’s provision regarding the non-prosecution of Epstein, which is expressly limited to prosecution “in this District.” NPA at 2. It is difficult to envision a clearer “affirmative appearance” than the express inclusion elsewhere in the agreement of a limitation that is conspicuously absent here. Basic principles of contract interpretation require an inference that the parties considered the inclusion of the phrase “in this District” necessary to limit the scope of the non-prosecution 20 DOJ-OGR-00002597