DOJ-OGR-00000086.tif

23a
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:
1. The District Court did not err in holding
that Epstein's NPA with USAO-SDFL did not bar
Maxwell's prosecution by USAOSDNY.
2. The District Court did not err in holding that the
Indictment 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.
4. The District Court's response to a jury note did
not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudi-
cial 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.
57 SA-459.
58 SA-461.
DOJ-OGR-00000086