DOJ-OGR-00000034

Format

pdf

File

20250424150144637_24-__PetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdf

Set

House Oversight (DOJ)

Pages

159

Text

Searchable

Text confidence

94%

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

No. 24-   IN THE Supreme Court of the Gnited States GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1, Petitioner, Vv. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID OSCAR MARKUS Counsel of Record MARKUS/Moss PLLC 40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One Miami, FL 33128 (305) 379-6667 dmarkus@markuslaw.com Counsel for Petitioner April 10, 2025 EEE) WILSON-EPES PRINTING Co., INC. — (202) 789-0096 — WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 DOJ-OGR- 00000034 

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court long has recognized that “when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). And, of course, it is well settled that plea agreements and non-prosecution agreements are interpreted using ordinary principles of contract construction, requiring that the plain language of the agreement must govern interpretation and that ambiguities must be resolved against the Government. Nevertheless, Circuits are split on whether promises in a plea agreement in one district on behalf of the “United States” or the “Government” binds the Government in other districts. The question presented here is: Under Santobello and common principles of contract interpretation, does a promise on behalf of the “United States” or the “Government” that is made by a United States Attorney in one district bind federal prosecutors in other districts? (i) DOJ-OGR-00000035 

i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner Ghislaine Maxwell was the Defendant in the district court and the Appellant in the Second Circuit. Respondent is the United States. RELATED PROCEEDINGS This case arises from the following proceedings: e United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256 (2d Cir. 2024), reh’g denied, November 25, 2024. Judgment entered September 17, 2024. e United State

[…]

Open in the archive