DOJ-OGR-00021738.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page91 of 93

78

range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment, Judge Nathan “failed to provide reasons for its upward variance.” (Br.84). Maxwell’s one-sentence argument is so cursory and undeveloped that it should be deemed waived. See United States v. Botti, 711 F.3d 299, 313 (2d Cir. 2013) (“It is a settled appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.”). In any event, Judge Nathan engaged in a lengthy discussion of the sentencing factors when imposing sentence, including Maxwell’s “pivotal role” in “heinous and predatory” sexual abuse of minor girls. (SA459). In describing the seriousness of the offense, Judge Nathan found Maxwell’s crimes to be both “extensive” and far-reaching” and concluded that “the damage done to these young girls was incalculable,” as a result of “the painful, horrific, and lasting impact of [the] trauma” they endured. (SA460). After an extensive discussion of Maxwell’s horrifying crimes, Judge Nathan explained that this conduct “demands a substantial sentence that meets the scope of the conduct and the scope of the harm,” and that the sentence must “send an unmistakable message” of general deterrence to “those who engage in and facilitate the sexual abuse and trafficking of underage victims” that “nobody is above the law.” (SA461). Accordingly, Judge Nathan concluded that “a very serious, a very significant sentence is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). (SA462). This discussion belies any claim that Judge Nathan inadequately explained the sentence.

DOJ-OGR-00021738