DOJ-OGR-00000067.tif

4a
We hold that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's
prosecution by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not
bind USAO-SDNY. We hold that Maxwell's Indictment
complied with the statute of limitations as 18 U.S.C.
§ 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual
abuse for offenses committed before the date of
the statute's enactment. We further hold that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one
juror's erroneous answers during voir dire. We also
hold that the District Court's response to a jury note
did not result in a constructive amendment of, or
prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indict-
ment. Lastly, we hold that Maxwell's sentence is pro-
cedurally reasonable.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court's June
29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
I. BACKGROUND¹
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell coordinated, facilitated,
and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of
women and underage girls. Starting in 1994, Maxwell
groomed numerous young women to engage in sexual
activity with Epstein by building friendships with
these young women, gradually normalizing discussions
of sexual topics and sexual abuse. Until about 2004,
this pattern of sexual abuse continued as Maxwell
provided Epstein access to underage girls in various
locations in the United States.
1 Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from
the evidence presented at trial and described in the light most
favorable to the Government. See United States v. Litwok, 678
F.3d 208, 210-11 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Because this is an appeal from a
judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial, the [] facts are
drawn from the trial evidence and described in the light most
favorable to the Government.").
DOJ-OGR-00000067