Full Text
“materially different” from the allegations in the Indictment.48 The evidence indicated that Maxwell transported Jane to New York for sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. Maxwell knew that the evidence also included conduct in New Mexico.49 Furthermore, Maxwell cannot demonstrate “substantial prejudice.” Maxwell received—over three weeks before trial—notes of Jane’s interview recording the abuse she suffered in New Mexico. This is enough to conclude that Maxwell was not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced.50
5. Maxwell’s Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable
Lastly, Maxwell argues that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the District Court erred in applying a leadership sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and inadequately explained its above-Guidelines sentence.51 We disagree.
48 Dove, 884 F.3d at 149.
49 As the District Court found, “[t]he Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various states, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico.” A-393.
50 See United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (concluding that a defendant was not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced because “the government disclosed the evidence and exhibits . . . four weeks prior to trial”).
51 At sentencing, the District Court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Maxwell to a slightly above-Guidelines term of 240 months’ imprisonment.
23
DOJ-OGR-00014873