UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
CABRANES
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
WESLEY
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
LOHIER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-04-27 | Court ruling | The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's orders and denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion f... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-27 | Court ruling | The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's orders and denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion f... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Legal notice | Issuance of a 'NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING' regarding the submitted 'Notice of Appearance as Addit... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Legal notice | The Court issued a Notice of Defective Filing for the motion for bail. | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2021-04-01 | Legal notice issuance | Issuance of a 'NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING' by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second C... | Thurgood Marshall U.S. Cour... | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell was dismissed, and the motion to consolidate was denied... | N/A | View |
| 2020-10-19 | Court ruling | The court dismissed the appeal of Defendant-Appellant Maxwell and denied the motion to consolidat... | N/A | View |
| 2020-09-28 | Court order | The court granted the appellant's (Ghislaine Maxwell) motion to file three documents under seal: ... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
| 2019-08-05 | Legal notice | The Court issued a Notice of Defective Filing because the submitted document was not text-searcha... | United States Court of Appe... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021904.jpg
This is a formal notification letter dated January 21, 2025, from the Supreme Court of the United States to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell v. United States. The letter confirms that Justice Sotomayor has granted Maxwell's application for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, setting the new deadline to April 10, 2025. The document includes filing stamps indicating it was processed by the Court of Appeals on January 27, 2025.
DOJ-OGR-00021897.jpg
This document is page 20 of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426, filed 12/02/2024) regarding Ghislaine Maxwell. The court is affirming the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion claiming a 'constructive amendment' or 'prejudicial variance' to her indictment, specifically regarding testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico. The text cites legal precedents involving the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause and standards for indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021878.jpg
This document is the cover page of a legal decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 22-1426-cr). The appeal, originating from the Southern District of New York, was argued on March 12, 2024, and decided on September 17, 2024. The presiding judges were Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier.
DOJ-OGR-00021877.jpg
This document is a formal Mandate from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, issued on December 2, 2024. It affirms the lower court's June 29, 2022 judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 22-1426). The decision was rendered by Circuit Judges Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier.
DOJ-OGR-00021876.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated November 25, 2024. It formally denies Ghislaine Maxwell's petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc regarding case docket number 22-1426.
DOJ-OGR-00021875.jpg
This document is a blank court form titled 'Verified Itemized Bill of Costs' from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated September 17, 2024. It relates to the appeal case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket #: 22-1426cr), referencing the original District Court case presided over by Judge Nathan in the SDNY. The form is intended for counsel to submit costs pursuant to FRAP 39(c), though the specific fields for amounts and signatures are unfilled in this copy.
DOJ-OGR-00021874.jpg
This document is a procedural instruction sheet from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the filing of a 'Bill of Costs' in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 22-1426cr). Dated September 17, 2024, it outlines the specific requirements under FRAP 39 for recovering costs, such as printing fees, following a judgment. The document lists Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Clerk Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe.
DOJ-OGR-00021848.jpg
This document is the cover page of a legal decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pertaining to the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (also known as Sealed Defendant 1). The appeal, originating from the Southern District of New York, was argued on March 12, 2024, and decided on September 17, 2024, by Circuit Judges Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier.
DOJ-OGR-00021825.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal filing, specifically a 'PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC', submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 1, 2024. The petition is filed by attorneys Arthur L. Aidala and Diana Fabi Samson on behalf of their client, Defendant-Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The case is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021824.jpg
This is a formal Judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated September 17, 2024. The document affirms the June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction against Ghislaine Maxwell (Defendant-Appellant) following her appeal. The decision was rendered by Circuit Judges Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier.
DOJ-OGR-00021822.jpg
This document is a blank 'Verified Itemized Bill of Costs' form filed on September 17, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The form is intended for a party to request the Clerk of Court to prepare an itemized statement of costs, such as docketing and printing fees, to be taxed against the opposing party.
DOJ-OGR-00021821.jpg
This document, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 17, 2024, provides detailed instructions for filing a bill of costs in the case of United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 22-1426cr). It outlines the procedural requirements under FRAP 39, including a 14-day filing deadline after judgment, verification, service on adversaries, and specific rules regarding allowable charges and documentation for printing costs.
DOJ-OGR-00021815.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal opinion (likely the appeal decision in US v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. The text discusses the legal concept of 'constructive amendment' of an indictment, ruling that the testimony of a witness named 'Jane' and a subsequent jury note did not improperly amend the charges against the defendant. The appellate court affirms the District Court's handling of jury instructions regarding the 'core of criminality' and 'Count Four' of the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021795.jpg
This document is the title page of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case No. 22-1426-cr). The case was argued on March 12, 2024, and decided on September 17, 2024, by Circuit Judges Cabranes, Wesley, and Lohier.
DOJ-OGR-00021790.jpg
This legal document is a letter from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to the Clerk of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter cites the precedent set in United States v. Watkins to argue that the Bail Reform Act permits a court to conduct a fact-based, "conduct-specific inquiry" for felonies involving a minor victim, rather than being limited to the legal elements of the charge. This submission is intended to provide supplemental authority to the court concerning the upcoming argument in Maxwell's case.
DOJ-OGR-00021788.jpg
This document is a Revised Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket # 22-1426cr). The notice, dated February 29, 2024, schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side for arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00021786.jpg
This is a Revised Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document schedules an oral argument for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side. It provides instructions for counsel regarding registration, remote participation options, and withdrawal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021784.jpg
This document is a Notice of Hearing Date from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket #: 22-1426cr). It schedules the oral argument for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City. The document outlines procedural rules regarding time allotment (10 minutes per side), registration, remote vs. in-person attendance, and withdrawal motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021782.jpg
This is a 'Notice of Hearing Date' from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the appeal case 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City, allotting 10 minutes per side. It provides instructions regarding in-person vs. remote attendance, health protocols, and procedures for withdrawing motions.
DOJ-OGR-00021779.jpg
This document is a Notice of Hearing Date from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case United States of America v. Maxwell (Docket 22-1426cr). It schedules oral arguments for Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 10:00 am at the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York City. The notice outlines procedural rules regarding attendance, time allotment (10 minutes per side), and protocols for motions to withdraw.
DOJ-OGR-00021778.jpg
This is a legal notice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, dated December 11, 2023, regarding the case of 'United States of America v. Maxwell' (Docket # 22-1426cr). The document formally announces that the case manager assigned to this legal matter has been changed. It provides a phone number for any inquiries related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00021742.jpg
This is an Oral Argument Statement filed on July 13, 2023, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Attorney Diana Fabi Samson, representing the appellant Ghislaine Maxwell, formally requests an oral argument. The document also lists September 6, 7, 18, and 25, 2023, as dates on which the attorney is unavailable to appear in court.
DOJ-OGR-00021741.jpg
This is an Oral Argument Statement filed on June 30, 2023, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Docket No. 22-1426). Filed by attorney Maurene Comey on behalf of the United States (the Appellee), the document indicates a conditional request for oral argument, contingent on another party also requesting it. The form also lists several dates in late 2023 on which Ms. Comey is unavailable to appear in court.
DOJ-OGR-00021738.jpg
This page from a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief, dated June 29, 2023) argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's claim that Judge Nathan failed to explain the upward variance in her sentencing. The text asserts that Maxwell's argument is waived due to being cursory, and further details that Judge Nathan provided an extensive explanation regarding Maxwell's 'pivotal role' in the abuse of minors and the need for deterrence.
DOJ-OGR-00021718.jpg
This document is page 58 (PDF page 71) of a legal filing from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell appeal), dated June 29, 2023. The text outlines legal standards regarding post-verdict juror inquiries and Rule 33 motions, citing precedents that protect jurors from harassment and limit testimony regarding deliberations (Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1)). It emphasizes that overturning a verdict based on juror non-disclosure during selection is rare.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity