DOJ-OGR-00000230.pdf

--- Page 1 --- The document image contains the following text: **Page Numbering and Headers** * Page number: 7 **Text Content** * The court of appeals observed that "[t]he only language in the NPA that speaks to the agreement's scope is limiting language" referring specifically to the Southern District of Florida. Pet. App. 10a; see id. at 9a-10a & n.13 (quoting language in the NPA protecting Epstein from charges "in this District"). The court also found no indication that either the Southern District of New York or the Criminal Division had reviewed and approved the NPA, as DOJ policy would have required if the NPA applied to other districts. See id. at 10a. And the court recognized that, from the inception of the office in the Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 92-93, a U.S. Attorney's authority had always been "cabinied to their specific district unless otherwise directed." Pet. App. 12a; see id. at 11a-12a & n.18. * ARGUMENT * Petitioner renews her contention (Pet. 12-18) that Epstein's nonprosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida barred petitioner's prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That contention is incorrect and petitioner does not show that it would succeed in any court of appeals. This case would also be an unsuitable vehicle for addressing the matters raised in the petition for a writ of certiorari. This Court has previously denied certiorari in a case raising a similar claim. See Prisco v. United States, 562 U.S. 1290 (2011) (No. 10-7895). It should follow the same course here. * 1. The court of appeals correctly held that Epstein's NPA did not bar petitioner's prosecution. Pet. App. 8a-12a. * a. Petitioner asserts (Pet. 1) that prosecution for one of her three counts of conviction was barred by a provision of Epstein's NPA stating, in relevant part, that "the **Footer** * DOJ-OGR-00000230 Note that the image appears to be a page from a legal document or court opinion, with the text formatted in a formal and structured manner. The use of abbreviations (e.g., "Pet." for "petitioner") and citations to other cases or statutes suggests that the document is a legal opinion or decision.