8a II. DISCUSSION 1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell’s Prosecution by USAO-SDNY Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prose- cution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell’s arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.°® In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which “the United States [] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co- conspirators of Epstein.” We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY. It is well established in our Circuit 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 appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.”!! And while Maxwell contends that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.!? Applying Annabi, we ° See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). 10 A-178. United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985). We recognize that circuits have been split on this issue for decades. See United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986); United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 550 (3d Cir. 2002). See, e.g., United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App’x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (applying Annabi to plea agreement DOJ-OGR-O00000071