House Oversight — DOJ production
- Format
- File
- 20250117133905126_22-1426.pdf
- Set
- House Oversight (DOJ)
- Pages
- 27
- Text
- Searchable
- Text confidence
- 94%
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page of 26 22-1426-cr United States v. Maxwell In the Gnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circutt AUGUST TERM 2023 No. 22-1426-cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, also known as Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ARGUED: MARCH 12, 2024 DECIDED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Before: CABRANES, WESLEY, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. DOJ-OGR- 00000002 Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page2 of 26 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1591(a) and (b)(2). She was principally sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release. On appeal, the questions presented are whether (1) Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; (2) a second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021, complied with the statute of limitations; (3) the District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) the District Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the second superseding indictment […]