Epstein Secrets

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

6) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

6) 12 United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1986) 20, 21, 23 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) 22 United States v. Sattar, No. 02 Cr. 395 (JGK), 2003 WL 22510398 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2003) 29 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 24 United States

107841 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016) 6 United States v. Padilla, 186 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999) 10 EFTA00028882 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 17 United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) 12 Other Authorities Dienst, J., Valique

ision in the NPA is intended to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it does so explicitly. See Mem. at 8-9 (citing examples of NPA's explicit references to USAO-SDFL). While the government is correct that the use of the term "the United States" in a plea agreement, without snore, is insufficient under Annabi and