2 indictment was denied, her trial proceeded, and she is now serving a 20 year sentence. In light of the disparity in how the circuit courts interpret the enforceability of a promise made by the “United States,” Maxwell’s motion to dismiss would have been granted if she had been charged in at least four other circuits (plus the Eleventh, where Epstein’s agreement was entered into). This inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places should be addressed by this Court. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In September 2007, after an extended period of negotiation with high-level representatives of the United States that included Main Justice, Jeffrey Epstein entered into a non-prosecution and plea agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. (App.24- 38). In return for pleading guilty to state charges in Florida, receiving and serving an eighteen-month sentence, and consenting to jurisdiction and liability for civil suits under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, the United States agreed not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses from 2001-2007 then under investigation. In addition, after lengthy negotiations, the United States agreed that “[iJn consideration of Epstein’s agreement to plead guilty and provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals].” (App.30-31). DOJ-OGR-00000044