DOJ-OGR-00021736.jpg
573 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate filing
File Size:
573 KB
Summary
This document is page 76 (PDF page 89) of a legal filing in Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), dated June 29, 2023. It outlines the Government's argument that Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable ('Point V'). Specifically, it discusses Maxwell's appeal against a 'four-level leadership enhancement' applied to her sentence, noting that Maxwell contests the finding that she acted as an organizer or leader of another criminal participant.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the sentencing discussion; arguing against a specific sentencing enhancement.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
The court that issued the original sentence.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Implied by '2d Cir.' citations and case number format.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Unknown (Past)
Relationships (1)
The legal argument centers on whether Maxwell 'led another criminal participant' as required for the sentencing enhancement.
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by applying a four-level leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021736.jpg
Quote #1
"That enhancement applies when a defendant was an “organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was . . . otherwise extensive,” which must include the defendant’s leadership of at least one other criminal participant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021736.jpg
Quote #2
"Maxwell contests only whether the evidence showed that she led another criminal participant."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021736.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,365 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page89 of 93
76
POINT V
The Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable
A. Applicable Law
A district court commits procedural error if, among other things, it “makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation” or “fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). This Court reviews a district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo, while factual determinations underlying a district court’s Guidelines calculation are reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597, 601 (2d Cir. 2015). In explaining the sentence, a district court must show that “it has considered the parties’ arguments and that it has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority.” Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193.
B. Discussion
Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by applying a four-level leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. That enhancement applies when a defendant was an “organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was . . . otherwise extensive,” which must include the defendant’s leadership of at least one other criminal participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 & cmt. n.2. Maxwell contests only whether the evidence showed that she led another criminal participant. (Br.84-85).
DOJ-OGR-00021736
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document