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

es brought in the Eastern District of New York were "sufficiently distinct" from the charges previously dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement with the Central District of California to permit the Eastern District to prosecute the defendant on the new charges. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. at 855-56. The court ultimately co

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

in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.) ("defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated....

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

in any way consulted or involved in the plea negotiations."); United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y.) ("defendants concede [] that the Central District had no knowledge of the investigation that was taking place in the Eastern District at the time the Central District plea was being negotiated....