10a The only language in the NPA that speaks to the agreement’s scope is limiting language. The negotiation history of the NPA, just as the text, fails to show that the agreement was intended to bind other districts. Under our Court’s precedent, the negotiation history of an NPA can support an inference that an NPA “affirmatively” binds other districts.'* Yet, the actions of USAO-SDFL do not indicate that the NPA was intended to bind other districts. The United States Attorney's Manual that was operable during the negotiations of the NPA required that: No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district(s) or division without the express written approval of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.'® Nothing before us indicates that USAO-SDNY had been notified or had approved of Epstein’s NPA with USAO-SDFL and intended to be bound by it. And the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division stated in an interview with the Office of Professional Responsibility that she “played no role” in the NPA, either by reviewing or approving the agreement. Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below. Id. (emphasis added). “4 See United States v. Russo, 801 F.2d 624, 626 (2d Cir. 1986). % United States Attorney’s Manual § 9-27.641 (2007). DOJ-OGR-00000073