Epstein Secrets

-SDNY") because it does not "affirmatively appear" to apply to this District. (Opp. at 2-7). But as we explained in our opening memorandum ("Mem."), Annabi is inapposite to the circumstances of this case. Annabi expressly stated that it was not addressing a situation, like the one here, where one feder

er alleged abuse to the FBI, at a time when the events were most fresh in her mind, is extraordinarily significant. It 5 The government argues that Cambindo Valencia is inapposite because it contends that the charges against the defendant's wife were dismissed because her prosecution violated the defendant's plea

001) 12 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) II, 12, 13 United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) passim United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979) 13, 14 United States v. Carter, 454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) 10 United States v. Dionisio, 503 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2

age and drafting history of the NPA does not "affirmatively appear" to bind this District 3 EFTA00103764 as to the SI Indictment counts. However, Annabi, by its own terms, is inapposite to the circumstances of this case, where one federal district has agreed that "the United States" will abandon cer

passim 820 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1987) 22, 23 United States v. Brown, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) 16 United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979) 20 United States v. Carter, 454 F.2d 426 (4th Cir. 1972) 17 United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 306 (5th C

PA does not bar the charges against her. As the Court explained in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Annabi 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 a

s not apply if later charges in another district are sufficiently "identical" to the dismissed ones, and no subsequent Second Circuit case applying Annabi has so held. Annabi applies squarely to the facts of this case and binds this Court. The Court also disagrees that Cosby mandates a different resul

ht not be permissible against a defendant whose charges were dismissed after her husband pleaded guilty. Dkt. No. 293 at 19 (citing United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979)). However, the Court agrees with the Government that the result in Cambindo Valencia rested on the terms of the husban