DOJ-OGR-00021687.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page40 of 93 27 Thus, Epstein's NPA with the USAO-SDFL does not bar this prosecution of Maxwell, and Judge Na- than correctly denied the motions to dismiss.6 3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Conduct a Hearing Finally, Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by denying her motions to dismiss without an evidentiary hearing. (Br.38-40). But as Judge Nathan explained, the cases cited by Maxwell in support of her request for a hearing "mostly involved oral agreements where there was no written record of the full set of terms reached by the parties," and all of which "involved defendants with first-hand knowledge of the negotiations... This is no such case. The NPA's terms are clear." (A.145). Furthermore, Maxwell had "an unusually large amount of information about the NPA's negotiation history in the form of the OPR report yet 6 Even if the NPA were deemed to apply here, it would only cover Count Six, which concerns a victim known to USAO-SDFL and a statute mentioned in the NPA, and not Counts Three and Four, which concern different or additional victims and offenses over an expanded time period. Maxwell's suggestion that the conspirator provision "is not limited to any particular offense or any time period" (Br.40) is based on the premise that the USAO-SDFL immunized Maxwell for any and all crimes, past or future, and highlights the unreasonableness of reading the NPA to apply to other U.S. Attorney's Offices. DOJ-OGR-00021687