DOJ-OGR-00014876.jpg
391 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal ruling / appellate court decision (page 26 of 26)
File Size:
391 KB
Summary
This document is the final page (26) of a United States Court of Appeals ruling filed on January 23, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific arguments on appeal, including the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) in Florida prevented her prosecution in New York.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the prosecution and appeal; her conviction is affirmed.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate/Co-conspirator |
Mentioned regarding his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (entered NPA with Epstein).
|
|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (prosecuted Maxwell).
|
|
| District Court |
The court whose judgment is being affirmed (SDNY).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-06-29
2024-01-23
Filing of the appellate decision affirming conviction.
Court of Appeals
Appellate Court
Ghislaine Maxwell
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location associated with USAO-SDFL and Epstein's NPA.
|
|
|
Location associated with USAO-SDNY and Maxwell's prosecution.
|
Relationships (1)
Document discusses whether Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA) extends to bar Maxwell's prosecution.
Key Quotes (2)
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (815 characters)
Case 20-3061 Document 178-1 Filed 01/23/2024 Page 26 of 26
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1281-2 Filed 12/02/24 Page 26 of 26
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1281-2 Filed 12/02/24 Page 26 of 26
1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein’s NPA
with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-
SDNY.
with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-
SDNY.
2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment
was filed within the statute of limitations.
was filed within the statute of limitations.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
4. 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 Indictment.
constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the
allegations in the Indictment.
5. The District Court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June
29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
26
DOJ-OGR-00014876
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document