Document 1:20-cr-00830-PAE

the actions and the duties of the U.S. Attorneys would be limited to their own districts, absent any express exceptions. Since 1789, while the number of federal districts has grown significantly, the duties of a U.S. Attorney and their scope remain largely unchanged. By statute, U.S. Attorneys, "within [their] district, shall (1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States; (2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned."17 Again, the scope of the duties of a U.S. Attorney is cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.18 In short, Annabi controls the result here. Nothing in the text of the NPA or its negotiation history suggests that the NPA precluded USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell for the charges in the 17 28 U.S.C. § 547. 18 This does not suggest that there are no instances in which a U.S. Attorney's powers do not extend beyond their districts. For instance, under 28 U.S.C. § 515 a U.S. Attorney can represent the Government or participate in proceedings in other districts, but only when specifically directed by the Attorney General: The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding . . . which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought. 13 DOJ-OGR-00014863 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case1:20-cr-00830-PAE Document178 Filed12/02/21 Page25of26 where much of the abuse occurred and where Kellen worked.56 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."57 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."58 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-00014875