Document 22-1426

MANDATE 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 17th day of September, two thousand twenty-four, Before: José A. Cabranes, Richard C. Wesley, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges. United States of America, Appellee, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant - Appellant. The appeal in the above captioned case from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was argued on the district court's record and the parties' briefs. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the district court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. For the Court: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court A True Copy Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit MANDATE ISSUED ON 12/02/2024 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 1-1, 07/08/2022, 3344417, Page1 of 2 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE Date: July 08, 2022 Docket #: 22-1426 Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Nathan DOCKETING NOTICE An appeal in the above-referenced case has been docketed under number: 22-1426. This number must appear on all documents related to this case that are filed in this Court. Appellate counsel of record either represented the appellant before the district court, filed the notice of appeal, or acted as counsel for appellee in the district court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the caption page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. In counseled cases the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form from this Court's website http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov. The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form requires the following information: YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be responsible for notifying any associated counsel. CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices, documents and orders filed in the case. DOJ-OGR-00020385 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 3-1, 07/08/2022, 3344434, Page1 of 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE Date: July 08, 2022 Docket #: 22-1426 Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Nathan NOTICE OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED In the above referenced case the document indicated below has been filed in the Court. ___ Record on Appeal - Certified List ___ Record on Appeal - CD ROM ___ Record on Appeal - Paper Documents x Record on Appeal - Electronic Index ___ Record on Appeal - Paper Index Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8503. DOJ-OGR-00020486 --- PAGE BREAK --- MANDATE Case 22-1426 Document 121 Filed 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page1 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 17th day of September, two thousand twenty-four, Before: José A. Cabranes, Richard C. Wesley, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., Circuit Judges. United States of America, Appellee, JUDGMENT v. Docket No. 22-1426 Ghislaine Maxwell, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant - Appellant. The appeal in the above captioned case from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was argued on the district court's record and the parties' briefs. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the district court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. For the Court: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court A True Copy Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit MANDATE ISSUED ON 12/02/2024 DOJ-OGR-00021877 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 1109-11 09/11/2022 243563638387P Page 2 of 526 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; and (5) Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable. Identifying no errors in the District Court's conduct of this complex case, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. 2 DOJ-OGR-00021849 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 109-2, 09/11/2024, 36363609, Page5 of 6 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT Date: September 17, 2024 Docket #: 22-1426cr DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Nathan BILL OF COSTS INSTRUCTIONS The requirements for filing a bill of costs are set forth in FRAP 39. A form for filing a bill of costs is on the Court's website. The bill of costs must: * be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment; * be verified; * be served on all adversaries; * not include charges for postage, delivery, service, overtime and the filers edits; * identify the number of copies which comprise the printer's unit; * include the printer's bills, which must state the minimum charge per printer's unit for a page, a cover, foot lines by the line, and an index and table of cases by the page; * state only the number of necessary copies inserted in enclosed form; * state actual costs at rates not higher than those generally charged for printing services in New York, New York; excessive charges are subject to reduction; * be filed via CM/ECF or if counsel is exempted with the original and two copies. DOJ-OGR-00021874 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 109-3, 09/11/2024, 63663609, Page5 of5 1of51 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CHIEF JUDGE CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE CLERK OF COURT Date: September 17, 2024 DC Docket #: 1:20-cr-330-1 Docket #: 22-1426cr DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) Short Title: United States of America v. Maxwell DC Judge: Nathan VERIFIED ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS Counsel for respectfully submits, pursuant to FRAP 39 (c) the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk to prepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the and in favor of for insertion in the mandate. Docketing Fee Costs of printing appendix (necessary copies _______) Costs of printing brief (necessary copies _______) Costs of printing reply brief (necessary copies _______) (VERIFICATION HERE) Signature DOJ-OGR-00021875 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 1109-11 09/11/2022 243636363871 Page11 of 526 22-1426-cr United States v. Maxwell In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2023 No. 22-1426-cr UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 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-00021848 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page37 of 221 A-237 3154 LCSCMAXT 1 activity that occurred in New Mexico, that wouldn't be a 2 sufficient basis to convict on Count Four or Count Two because 3 it requires an intent to violate New York law, and you can't 4 violate this section of New York law in New Mexico. 5 6 So if that's all they're considered on a basis to 7 convict on Count Four and Count Two, then that would be 8 insufficient and improper, and that's why I think a 9 supplemental instruction that clarifies that point is warranted 10 in this case, but I understand the Court has rejected that. 11 And that's all. 12 THE COURT: I think the instruction is correct that I 13 referred them to. The reading of the note that you've 14 suggested, I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or 15 many other plausible readings, and what you've proposed, as you 16 just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that's why 17 precisely we sent them back to the charge. 18 Anything else? 19 MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. 20 THE COURT: As I said, we'll see where we are at the 21 end of the day, but in light of the variant, my concern about 22 interruption of trial, given the increasing daily risk of 23 exposure to either a juror or trial participant requiring 24 quarantine, it is time to think to have the jurors make plans 25 to continue deliberating until a verdict is reached. 26 I will wait until we hear from the jury, otherwise SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020863