DOJ-OGR-00021879.jpg

696 KB

Extraction Summary

3
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court document (appellate decision/opinion)
File Size: 696 KB
Summary

This document is Page 2 of an appellate court decision filed on December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejected Maxwell's five arguments on appeal, including her claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida protected her from prosecution in New York. The court affirmed the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
Appealing her conviction and sentence for sex trafficking and conspiracy.
Alison J. Nathan Judge
United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York who presided over the original conviction.
Jeffrey Epstein Deceased Sex Offender
Mentioned regarding his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida, which Maxwell argued s...

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
The court where Maxwell was convicted.
United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida
Office that entered into the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein.
United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York
Office that prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (indicated by footer stamp).

Timeline (3 events)

2021-03-29
Second superseding indictment filed.
New York
2022-06-29
Judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell.
Southern District of New York
2024-12-02
Date of document filing/release (from header).
Appellate Court

Locations (2)

Location Context
Jurisdiction of the Southern District Court (SDNY).
Jurisdiction of the Southern District Attorney's Office (SDFL) regarding Epstein's NPA.

Relationships (2)

Ghislaine Maxwell Legal/Criminal Association Jeffrey Epstein
Maxwell argued Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement should bar her prosecution.
Ghislaine Maxwell Defendant/Judge Alison J. Nathan
Judge Nathan presided over Maxwell's conviction.

Key Quotes (3)

"Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity... transportation of a minor... and sex trafficking of a minor."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021879.jpg
Quote #1
"She was principally sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021879.jpg
Quote #2
"Identifying no errors in the District Court’s conduct of this complex case, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021879.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,716 characters)

Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page2 of 26
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). She was principally sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release.
On appeal, the questions presented are whether (1) Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; (2) a second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021, complied with the statute of limitations; (3) the District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) the District Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the second superseding indictment; and (5) Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Identifying no errors in the District Court’s conduct of this complex case, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
2
DOJ-OGR-00021879

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document