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

F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (plea agreement explicitly stated that "[the] agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (plea agreement explic

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 a. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid

which it was made. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its e

ecution of Potential Co-Conspirators Is Not Limited to the SDFL. 18 1. The NPA is binding on the USAO in this District 18 2. United States v. Annabi does not alter the analysis. 19 1. There is an "affirmative appearance" that the co-conspirator immunity provision was intended to apply outsid

which it was made. See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) ("agreement is limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and cannot bind other federal, state, or local authorities"); United States v. Ashraf, 320 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2009) (plea agreement "by its e