Epstein Secrets

e's the only one who takes the blame for what happened").3 The government further asserts that Ms. Maxwell's position is not supported by subsequent Second Circuit cases that apply Annabi. (Opp. 5-6). But this argument simply begs the question. Although courts in this Circuit have applied Annabi to evaluate whe

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

t in this District as barred by what they claimed was an earlier "plea agreement" in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. Id. 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 p

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

t in this District as barred by what they claimed was an earlier "plea agreement" in the Eastern District, and the court denied the motion. Id. The Second Circuit, in affirming the denial, stated simply that "[I] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the p

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