DOJ-OGR-00014875.jpg
500 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court opinion / appellate ruling
File Size:
500 KB
Summary
This document is page 25 of a legal opinion (likely from a Court of Appeals) affirming the sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court upholds the District Court's application of a 'leadership enhancement' to her sentence and validates the court's reasoning regarding the gravity of her conduct and her pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of underage girls. It references specific sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and mentions an individual named Kellen in the context of where the abuse occurred.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the sentencing discussion; described as having a 'pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of the underaged ...
|
| Kellen | Associate/Employee |
Mentioned as working at the location where much of the abuse occurred.
|
| District Court | Judicial Body |
The lower court whose sentencing decision is being reviewed and upheld.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Original sentencing court.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-12-02
Relationships (2)
Text mentions abuse occurred 'where Kellen worked' in the context of Maxwell's leadership enhancement.
Reference to Maxwell facilitating the abuse of underaged girls.
Key Quotes (4)
"We therefore hold that the District Court did not err in applying the leadership enhancement."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014875.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell’s 'pivotal role in facilitating the abuse of the underaged girls through a series of deceptive tactics.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00014875.jpg
Quote #2
"The District Court recognized that the sentence 'must reflect the gravity of Ms. Maxwell’s conduct... and the significant and lasting harm it inflicted.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00014875.jpg
Quote #3
"'a very serious, a very significant sentence is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment' under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00014875.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,168 characters)
Case 22-1451, Document 120-1, 01/02/2024, 3603772, Page 25 of 26
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 781 Filed 12/02/21 Page 25 of 26
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 781 Filed 12/02/21 Page 25 of 26
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.
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.
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.
56 A-417.
57 SA-459.
58 SA-461.
25
DOJ-OGR-00014875
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document