EPSTEIN
page 10 / 1261 . OCR, unverified
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000025.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000025.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page24 of 26
We review a sentence for both procedural and substantive
reasonableness, which “amounts to review for abuse of discretion.” 2
We have explained that procedural error is found when a district court
“fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines
range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider
the [Section] 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or fails adequately to explain the chosen sentence.”
The District Court did none of that. It is important to emphasize that
the Sentencing Guidelines “are guidelines—that is, they are truly
advisory.”** A District Court is “generally free to impose sentences
outside the recommended range” based on its own “informed and
individualized judgment.”*°
With respect to the four-level leadership enhancement, the District
Court found that Maxwell “supervised” Sarah Kellen in part because
of testimony from two of Epstein’s pilots who testified that Kellen was
Maxwell’s assistant. The District Court found that testimony credible,
in part because it was corroborated by other testimony that Maxwell
was Epstein’s “number two and the lady of the house” in Palm Beach,
52 Linited States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). “Regardless of whether
the sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range, the appellate court must
review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007).
33 United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 38 (2d Cir. 2012).
54 Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189.
53 Id.
24
DOJ-OGR-00000025
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000025.jpg.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000026.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000026.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page25 of 26
where much of the abuse occurred and where Kellen worked.**° We
therefore hold that the District Court did not err in applying the
leadership enhancement.
With respect to the length of the sentence, the District Court
properly discussed the sentencing factors when imposing the
sentence, and described, at length, Maxwell’s “pivotal role in
facilitating the abuse of the underaged girls through a series of
deceptive tactics.”°” The District Court recognized that the sentence
“must reflect the gravity of Ms. Maxwell’s conduct, of Ms. Maxwell’s
offense, the pivotal role she played in facilitating the offense, and the
significant and lasting harm it inflicted.”°* And the District Court
explained that “a very serious, a very significant sentence is necessary
to achieve the purposes of punishment” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In
sum, the District Court did not err by failing to adequately explain its
sentence.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we hold as follows:
56 A-417,
57 SA-459.
58 SA-461.
25
DOJ-OGR-00000026
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000026.jpg.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000027.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000027.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page26 of 26
1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein’s NPA
with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-
SDNY.
2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment
was filed within the statute of limitations.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
4. The District Court’s response to a jury note did not result ina
constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the
allegations in the Indictment.
5. The District Court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June
29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
26
DOJ-OGR-00000027
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000027.jpg.txt ====================
==================== START OF root__DOJ-OGR-00000028.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00000028.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 22-1426, Document 120, 11/25/2024, 3637560, Page‘ of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
25" day of November, two thousand twenty-four.
United States of America,
Appellee,
ORDER
v. Docket No: 22-1426
Ghislaine Maxwell, AKA Sealed Defendant 1,