SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00021909.jpg
This legal document, filed on November 19, 2019, is page 2 of a filing related to the death of inmate Jeffrey Epstein. It identifies the defendants, correctional officers Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, and details their employment history at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC). The document specifies Noel's work shifts on August 8, 9, and 10, 2019, leading up to the discovery of Epstein's body after he committed suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00021908.jpg
This document is the first page of a federal indictment filed on November 19, 2019, against correctional officers Tova Noel and Michael Thomas. It alleges that on August 10, 2019 (the date of Jeffrey Epstein's death, though he is not named in this specific text), the defendants failed to perform mandated prisoner counts in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) of the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC). Instead, they allegedly browsed the internet and falsified records to make it appear they had conducted the required rounds.
DOJ-OGR-00021903.jpg
This document is the final page of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426) dated December 2, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific points of appeal, including arguments regarding the statute of limitations, jury instructions, sentencing reasonableness, and the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021880.jpg
This legal document is a court filing dated December 2, 2024, concerning the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction. It identifies the legal counsel for both the appellant, Maxwell, and the appellee, the United States, and states that Maxwell is appealing her June 29, 2022, conviction and sentence from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for charges including conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor.
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-00021851.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in New York, affirms that the indictment complied with the statute of limitations, and denies that a juror's erroneous answers during voir dire warranted a new trial. The document notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000.
DOJ-OGR-00021850.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, detailing the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction. Written by Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes, it lists the legal counsel for both sides and summarizes Maxwell's June 29, 2022, conviction for sex trafficking and conspiracy, including her sentencing of concurrent prison terms totaling 240 months (20 years).
DOJ-OGR-00021849.jpg
This page is from an appellate court decision affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines her sentence (concurrent terms totaling 240 months) for sex trafficking and conspiracy charges. The court rejects her five grounds for appeal, which included arguments about Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations, and jury impartiality.
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-00021828.jpg
This document is page 4 (labeled 'iii') of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief filed on November 1, 2024, in Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal). It lists various legal precedents cited in the brief, including a 2024 Second Circuit decision in *U.S. v. Maxwell*, along with citations to other federal cases such as *U.S. v. Papa* and *U.S. v. Persico*. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
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-00021806.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (dated Sept 17, 2024) discussing the legal validity and scope of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). It argues that the USAO-SDNY was not notified of, nor did it approve, the NPA created by the USAO-SDFL, and cites the Judiciary Act of 1789 to argue that one US Attorney's actions in a specific district do not bind other districts or the nation. It also notes that the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division confirmed to the Office of Professional Responsibility that she had no role in the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021798.jpg
This document, a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses an appeal related to Maxwell's prosecution. It addresses five key questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution by the USAO-SDNY, the compliance of Maxwell's March 29, 2021 indictment with the statute of limitations, and the District Court's discretion in denying a new trial and its response to a jury note. The document concludes that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with limitations, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021796.jpg
This document is page 2 of an appellate court opinion affirming the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell. It outlines the charges she was convicted of (sex trafficking, conspiracy), her sentence (concurrent terms up to 240 months), and rejects five specific arguments raised on appeal, including the applicability of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement and claims of jury bias. The court concludes by affirming the District Court's June 29, 2022 judgment.
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-00021760.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal brief filed on July 27, 2023, arguing for the enforcement of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The text contends that because the Government drafted the NPA with unequal bargaining power, any ambiguities should be resolved against the Government, and that Epstein fulfilled his obligations under the agreement before his death. It specifically mentions the 'co-conspirator clause' being understood as global and argues the Government cannot retroactively restrict the NPA.
DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
This legal document from July 27, 2023, argues that Ms. Maxwell has legal standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites precedent from the Second and Seventh Circuits to support the claim that the immunity granted in the NPA should prevent the United States from prosecuting her in the Southern District of New York. The document asserts that the District Court has already correctly found in Maxwell's favor on this point.
DOJ-OGR-00021750.jpg
This document is a legal brief from a court case, dated July 27, 2023, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. It argues that her sentence was erroneous due to a miscalculation and an unsupported four-point enhancement. The brief also contends that Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of a non-prosecution agreement that should have barred the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and requests that her conviction be reversed or the case be remanded.
DOJ-OGR-00021740.jpg
This document is a Certificate of Compliance filed on June 29, 2023, for Case 22-1426. Assistant U.S. Attorney Won S. Shin certifies on behalf of U.S. Attorney Damian Williams that the associated legal brief complies with a court order from April 28, 2023, and contains 19,291 words.
DOJ-OGR-00021675.jpg
This legal document discusses a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein that included a provision protecting potential co-conspirators, though Maxwell was not named or a party to it. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) charged Maxwell. Her attempts to dismiss these charges based on the NPA were denied by the District Court, which concluded the NPA did not bind the USAO-SDNY.
DOJ-OGR-00021661.jpg
This document is the first page of a legal brief filed by the United States of America in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The brief is in response to an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted on June 29, 2022, in the Southern District of New York after a jury trial presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document outlines the charges from the March 29, 2021 superseding indictment, beginning with conspiracy to entice minors to travel for illegal sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00021649.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines the structure of the filing, which includes the government's case detailing the alleged sexual abuse of six individuals (Jane, Kate, Annie Farmer, Virginia Roberts, Carolyn, and Melissa) and a legal argument regarding whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement bars the prosecution of Maxwell in the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00021592.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426, likely US v. Maxwell appeal records) containing a judge's ruling during sentencing. The judge overrules the defendant's objection and sustains the government's objection regarding the PSR Guideline calculation, explicitly finding that Virginia Roberts and Melissa were minor victims trafficked and abused by the defendant and Epstein. Consequently, the judge rules that these victims must be included in the sentencing calculation under Section 3D1.4, despite not being named in the indictment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity