NOLLE PROSEQUI entered as to Eric Adams. (Sullivan, Edward)
This document, signed by Donald Trump's former personal attorney after seven USDOJ attorneys resigned in protest, is the result of the Thursday Afternoon Massacre.
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------- x
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
- v. –
:
:
ERIC ADAMS,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------------- X
1.
NOLLE PROSEQUI
24 Cr. 556 (DEH)
The United States respectfully submits this motion seeking dismissal without
prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 See United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230, 238 (2d Cir. 2022)
(reasoning that “[t]he government may elect to eschew or discontinue prosecutions for any of a
number of reasons,” including based on announcements relating to “general policy.”); United
States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“[D]ecisions to dismiss pending
criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to
bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.”); United States v. Amos, 2025 WL
275639, at *2 (D.D.C. 2025) (“[T]he government’s view of the public interest does not clearly fall
within the types of reasons found to provide legitimate grounds to deny the government Rule 48(a)
motion to dismiss charges.”).
2.
Through counsel, Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion
and agreed that he is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of the Hyde Amendment. See P.L. 105119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A note.
1
The undersigned attorneys from the Department of Justice have replaced AUSAs from the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as counsel of record in this case. The
Department of Justice will handle this matter and any related decision-making in the future.Page 2 3.
On September 24, 2024, Adams was charged in a five-count Indictment, 24 Cr. 556
4.
The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined, pursuant to an authorization
(DEH).
by the Attorney General, that dismissal is necessary and appropriate, and has directed the same,
based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case.
5.
In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney
General concluded that dismissal is necessary because of appearances of impropriety and risks of
interference with the 2025 elections in New York City, which implicate Executive Order 14147,
90 Fed. Reg. 8235. The Acting Deputy Attorney General reached that conclusion based on, among
other things, review of a website2 maintained by a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York and an op-ed published by that former U.S. Attorney.3
6.
In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney
General also concluded that continuing these proceedings would interfere with the defendant’s
ability to govern in New York City, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national
security, and related federal immigration initiatives and policies. See, e.g., Executive Order 14159,
90 Fed. Reg. 8443; Executive Order 14165, 90 Fed. Reg. 8467. The Acting Deputy Attorney
General reached that conclusion after learning, among other things, that as a result of these
proceedings, Adams has been denied access to sensitive information that the Acting Deputy
Attorney General believes is necessary for Adams to govern and to help protect the City.
2
https://www.damianwilliamsofficial.com.
3
https://www.cityandstateny.com/opinion/2025/01/opinion-indictment-sad-state-new-yorkgovernment/402235/?oref=csny-author-
2Page 3 Re Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests, on consent, that the Court
enter an order of nolle prosequi pursuant to Rule 48(a), without prejudice, with respect to all of
the charges in Indictment 24 Cr. 556 (DEH).
Dated: February 14, 2025 /s/
Antoinette T. Bacon
Supervisory Official
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
Edward Sullivan
Senior Litigation Counsel
Public Integrity Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
(202) 514-2000
Based on the foregoing, I hereby direct, with leave of the Court, that an order of nolle
prosequi pursuant to Rule 48(a), without prejudice, be filed as to Defendant Eric Adams with
respect to Indictment 24 Cr. 556 (DEH).
Dated: February 14, 2025 ae
Emil Bove “ a
Acting Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
SO ORDERED:
THE HONORABLE DALE E. HO
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Dated:
New York, New YorkPage 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court using the CM/ECF system, which will serve all counsel of record.
________/s__________________
Edward Sullivan
Senior Litigation Counsel
Dated: February 14, 2025
4
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------- x
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
- v. –
:
:
ERIC ADAMS,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------------- X
1.
NOLLE PROSEQUI
24 Cr. 556 (DEH)
The United States respectfully submits this motion seeking dismissal without
prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 See United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230, 238 (2d Cir. 2022)
(reasoning that “[t]he government may elect to eschew or discontinue prosecutions for any of a
number of reasons,” including based on announcements relating to “general policy.”); United
States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“[D]ecisions to dismiss pending
criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to
bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.”); United States v. Amos, 2025 WL
275639, at *2 (D.D.C. 2025) (“[T]he government’s view of the public interest does not clearly fall
within the types of reasons found to provide legitimate grounds to deny the government Rule 48(a)
motion to dismiss charges.”).
2.
Through counsel, Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this motion
and agreed that he is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of the Hyde Amendment. See P.L. 105119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2440, 2519; 18 U.S.C. § 3006A note.
1
The undersigned attorneys from the Department of Justice have replaced AUSAs from the U.S.
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York as counsel of record in this case. The
Department of Justice will handle this matter and any related decision-making in the future.
PDF Page 3
3.
On September 24, 2024, Adams was charged in a five-count Indictment, 24 Cr. 556
4.
The Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined, pursuant to an authorization
(DEH).
by the Attorney General, that dismissal is necessary and appropriate, and has directed the same,
based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case.
5.
In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney
General concluded that dismissal is necessary because of appearances of impropriety and risks of
interference with the 2025 elections in New York City, which implicate Executive Order 14147,
90 Fed. Reg. 8235. The Acting Deputy Attorney General reached that conclusion based on, among
other things, review of a website2 maintained by a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York and an op-ed published by that former U.S. Attorney.3
6.
In connection with that determination and directive, the Acting Deputy Attorney
General also concluded that continuing these proceedings would interfere with the defendant’s
ability to govern in New York City, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national
security, and related federal immigration initiatives and policies. See, e.g., Executive Order 14159,
90 Fed. Reg. 8443; Executive Order 14165, 90 Fed. Reg. 8467. The Acting Deputy Attorney
General reached that conclusion after learning, among other things, that as a result of these
proceedings, Adams has been denied access to sensitive information that the Acting Deputy
Attorney General believes is necessary for Adams to govern and to help protect the City.
2
https://www.damianwilliamsofficial.com.
3
https://www.cityandstateny.com/opinion/2025/01/opinion-indictment-sad-state-new-yorkgovernment/402235/?oref=csny-author-river.
2
PDF Page 4
Re Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests, on consent, that the Court
enter an order of nolle prosequi pursuant to Rule 48(a), without prejudice, with respect to all of
the charges in Indictment 24 Cr. 556 (DEH).
Dated: February 14, 2025 /s/
Antoinette T. Bacon
Supervisory Official
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
Edward Sullivan
Senior Litigation Counsel
Public Integrity Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
(202) 514-2000
Based on the foregoing, I hereby direct, with leave of the Court, that an order of nolle
prosequi pursuant to Rule 48(a), without prejudice, be filed as to Defendant Eric Adams with
respect to Indictment 24 Cr. 556 (DEH).
Dated: February 14, 2025 ae
Emil Bove “ a
Acting Deputy Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
SO ORDERED:
THE HONORABLE DALE E. HO
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Dated:
New York, New York
PDF Page 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court using the CM/ECF system, which will serve all counsel of record.
________/s__________________
Edward Sullivan
Senior Litigation Counsel
Dated: February 14, 2025
4
Back to 
