How did SDNY prosecutors avoid the limitations of the 2008 non-prosecution agreement?

The SDNY prosecutors avoided the limitations of the 2008 non-prosecution agreement by arguing that it did not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, as it was entered into by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida EFTA00089393. They relied on Second Circuit precedent, which holds 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, as stated in United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) EFTA00103275, EFTA00103273, EFTA00105663, EFTA00105665, EFTA00154640, EFTA00154642, EFTA00103343, EFTA00103345, EFTA00103238, EFTA00103240, EFTA00104652, EFTA00104654. Additionally, the indictment charged conduct that occurred in New York, which was not covered by the NPA EFTA00089393.