DOJ-OGR-00021750.jpg
676 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
676 KB
Summary
This document is a legal brief from a court case, dated July 27, 2023, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that her sentence was erroneous due to a miscalculation and an unsupported four-point enhancement. The brief also contends that Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of a non-prosecution agreement that should have barred the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and requests that her conviction be reversed or the case be remanded.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Appellant |
The central figure in the document, arguing against her sentence and conviction.
|
| Annabi | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'U.S. v. Annabi' to support an argument about non-prosecution agreements.
|
| Cambindo-Valencia | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'U.S. v. Cambindo-Valencia' to support a legal argument.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | government agency |
The court that issued the sentence Ms. Maxwell is appealing.
|
| USAO-SDNY | government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which was allegedly barred from prosecutin...
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears as part of a document control number (DOJ-OGR-00021750) at the bottom of the page, likely referring to the De...
|
Timeline (2 events)
2023-07-27
Filing of Document 87 in Case 22-1426, which is an Appellant's Principal Brief.
The District Court issued a sentence to Ms. Maxwell which included a four-point enhancement.
District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced by the acronym SDNY in USAO-SDNY, indicating the jurisdiction of the prosecutor's office.
|
Relationships (2)
Ms. Maxwell is appealing a sentence issued by the District Court.
The document argues that the USAO-SDNY was barred from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell due to a non-prosecution agreement.
Key Quotes (1)
"it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction,"Source
— U.S. v. Annabi
(Cited as a legal precedent for an exception allowing a non-prosecution agreement to be enforced outside its original district.)
DOJ-OGR-00021750.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,520 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page8 of 35
Ms. Maxwell argues that the District Court’s sentence was in error because (1) its four-point enhancement under USSG Section 3B1.1 lacked any support in the record that Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal participant; and (2) its sentencing decision was predicated on a miscalculation of the applicable guideline range for incarceration and fines in the first instance and a subsequent failure to correct its error by either recalculating the sentence so as to comport with the proper guideline range or provide reasons for its upward departure. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(c)(2).
The conviction must be reversed and the indictment dismissed or, in the alternative, the matter should be remanded for the appropriate hearings.
POINT I
(Point I in Appellant’s Principal Brief)
(Point I in Appellant’s Principal Brief)
MS. MAXWELL IS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT WHICH, BY ITS TERMS, BARRED THE USAO-SDNY FROM PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL FOR THESE OFFENSES.
In this Circuit, while ordinarily any plea or non-prosecution agreement is confined to enforcement in the district of origin, under U.S. v. Annabi, supra., there is an exception wherein "it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction," as is the case here. See Annabi at 672. This exception dictates that the NPA be enforced to protect Ms. Maxwell as a third-party beneficiary to the agreement from prosecution for these offenses. See U.S. v. Cambindo-Valencia, 609
2
DOJ-OGR-00021750
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document