DOJ-OGR-00000005.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page4 of 26

of three years, three years, and five years, respectively. The District
Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of
$750,000.

On appeal, the questions presented are (1) whether Jeffrey
Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”)
barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York (“USAO-SDNY”); (2) whether
Maxwell’s second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the
“Indictment”) complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether 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) whether the District
Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment
of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and
(5) whether Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.

We hold that Epstein’s NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution
by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold
that Maxwell’s Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as
18 U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for
offenses committed before the date of the statute’s enactment. We
further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror’s
erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that 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

4

DOJ-OGR-00000005