9a conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecu- tion by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district: After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed." entered into in the District of New Jersey); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App’x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (same, to agreement entered into in the District of New Mexico). Nor does Annabi, as Maxwell contends, apply only where subsequent charges are "sufficiently distinct" from charges covered by an earlier agreement. In Annabi, this Court rejected an interpreta- tion of a prior plea agreement that rested on the Double Jeopardy Clause, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy Clause applied, the subsequent charges were "sufficiently distinct" and therefore fell outside the Clause’s protections. Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. This Court did not, however, conclude that the rule of construction it announced depended on the similarities between earlier and subsequent charges. 13 A-175 (emphasis added). The agreement’s scope is also limited in an additional section: THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of DOJ-OGR-00000072