Epstein Secrets

nited States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) 15 United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir.1985) 19 EFTA00103760 United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2004) 18, 19, 20 United States v. Rooney, 37 F.3d 847 (2d Cir. 1994) 17, 18 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d C

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

04) 7 United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir.1985) 9 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 8, 10 United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463 (2d Cir. 2004) 9, 11 United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920 (2d Cir. 2010) 7 United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1

-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

im United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

im United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN)

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

im United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN)

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

ited States v. Loera, passim 333 F.Supp.3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) 105 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 45 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 18, 21 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 52, 53, 54, 55 United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), ard, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement or the "

im United States v. Loera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN

irmatively establish that a more expansive interpretation was contemplated." United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (citing Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672), aff'd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988)(tbl.). To meet this burden, a defendant must establish that either the text of the agreement

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

rosecutions of a particular defendant for the same conspiracy, not separate prosecutions of individual co-conspirators. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 2004). The Double Jeopardy Clause does not require all co- conspirators be tried together for related offenses. See Zafir