Browse by Document Type
Legal (11,650 documents)
3la
described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all
of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the
United States also agrees that it will not institute any
criminal char es against any pote
10.
11.
29a
waives his right to contest damages up to an
amount as agreed to between the identified
individual and Epstein, so long as the identified
individual elects to proceed exclusively under
23a
tactics.”°” 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,
2la
in New Mexico.*? Furthermore, Maxwell cannot demon-
strate “substantial prejudice.” Maxwell received—over
three weeks before trial—notes of Jane’s interview
recording the abuse she suffered in Ne
20a
not “uncertain whether [Maxwell] was convicted of
conduct that was the subject of the grand jury’s
indictment.”**
We also cannot conclude that the evidence at
trial prejudicially varied from the
19a
essential elements of the offense charged that there is
a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have
been convicted of an offense other than that charged
in the indictment.” A constructiv
18a
jury to the second element of Count Four.*° Maxwell
subsequently filed a letter seeking reconsideration of
the District Court's response, claiming that this
response resulted in a constructive am
17a
fact, as the District Court noted, Maxwell did not
challenge the inclusion of other jurors who disclosed
past experience with sexual abuse, assault, or harass-
ment. This is enough; the District
15a
limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution
of these offenses will apply—plainly requires that it
prevent the application of any statute of limitations
that would otherwise apply to pas
13a
those offenses that were committed before the
enactment into law of the provision. On both points,
we disagree and hold that the District Court correctly
denied Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the c
12a
cabined to their specific district unless otherwise
directed.'®
In short, Annabi controls the result here. Nothing in
the text of the NPA or its negotiation history suggests
that the NPA preclud
8a
Il. DISCUSSION
1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL
Did Not Bar Maxwell’s Prosecution by
USAO-SDNY
Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the
Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made b
5a
1. Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement
In September 2007, following state and federal
investigations into allegations of Epstein’s unlawful
sexual activity, Epstein entered into an NPA with
USAO-S
4a
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
3a
JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29,
2022, judgment of conviction in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Alison J.
2a
§ 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). She was principally
sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60
months, 120 months, and 240 months
APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: OPINION, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (September 17,
APPENDIX B: NON-PROSECUTION AGREE-
MENT, Office of the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern Dist
18
OPR report, precludes application of Annabi in this
case because the intent to bind the United States as a
whole, and not just the Southern District of Florida, is
clear.
Third, the Second Circui
15
As to the first and most basic of these principles,
terms within a plea agreement are to be given their
ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Williams, 102 F.3d at 927;
Margalli-Olvera, 43 F.3d at 352; Uni
16
the other was the more expansive global federal part
of the NPA.
Third, as every circuit recognizes (including the
Second and Seventh), it is a well- settled proposition
that ambiguities in a ple
14
by one attorney must be attributed, for these purposes,
to the Government.” Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. See also
Commonwealth v. Cosby, 666 Pa. 416, 481-82, 252
A.3d 1092, 1131 (Pa. 2021) (finding by
13
made on behalf of the United States binds the entire
United States unless it says so affirmatively (as, in
fact, the agreement at issue here did for Epstein
himself, but not for his co-conspirator
10
first to hold that a promise on behalf of the United
States in one district not to prosecute a defendant is
binding upon U.S. Attorney’s offices in other districts.
Id. at 428. As that court noted
12
District of Florida, and not in the Southern District of
New York. United States v. Maxwell, 118 F.4th 256,
261 (2d Cir. 2024). The Maxwell court found that
it must “affirmatively appear[] that th
9
circuit split regarding an important issue of federal
criminal law.
A. The Third, Fourth, Eighth and Ninth Cir-
cuits have faithfully applied Santobello’s
instruction that promises in plea agree-
11
U.S. Attorney’s Office on behalf of the “Government”
(defined in that agreement to include its “depart-
ments, officers, agents, and agencies”) binds not
just the office of the U.S. Attorney but a
8
factor is that, when a plea rests in any significant
degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so
that it can be said to be part of the inducement or
consideration, such promise must be f
6
Florida, but it reported that “witnesses” (none of whom
were on the defense side) stated that the clause
provided transactional immunity and that it “found
no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney fro
7
Maxwell moved for rehearing en banc, which was
denied. (App.92).
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
This case is the perfect vehicle for resolving an
acknowledged circuit split over the proper app
4
presumably in an effort to circumvent the time frame
covered by the NPA.
On March 29, 2021, the government added in its
superseding indictment an alleged sex trafficking
offense (Count Six) relate
3
This co-conspirator clause, containing no geographic
limitation on where in the United States it could be
enforced, was actively negotiated at the same time as
the terms of Epstein’s protection for
2
indictment was denied, her trial proceeded, and she
is now serving a 20 year sentence. In light of
the disparity in how the circuit courts interpret the
enforceability of a promise made by the “Uni
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully petitions for a writ
of certiorari to review the judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
OPINIONS BELOW
II.
lv
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
A. The Third, Fourth, Eighth and Ninth
Circuits have faithfully applied
Santobello’s instruction that promises
in plea agreements must be binding
on the governmen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED... eeeeeees
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS...
RELATED PROCEEDINGS ..00.. eects
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES |... eects
OPINIONS BELOW .... eee eeeseeessneeeesneeeeeenees
JURI
QUESTION PRESENTED
This Court long has recognized that “when a plea
rests in any significant degree on a promise or
agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to
be part of the inducement or
deepened a circuit split on whether a plea agreement is binding on federal prosecutors in
districts other than the one in which it is entered. See United States v. Maxwell, 118 F. 4th
256 n.11 (2nd Ci
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page26 of 26
1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein’s NPA
with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-
SDNY.
2. The
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page23 of 26
“materially different” from the allegations in the Indictment. The
evidence indicated that Maxwell transported Jane to New York for
sex
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page22 of 26
a violation of New York law.”* It is therefore not “uncertain whether
[Maxwell] was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the gr
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page20 of 26
Maxwell subsequently filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the
District Court’s response, claiming that this response resulted in a
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page21 of 26
likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense
other than that charged in the indictment.”*° A constructive
amend
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page19 of 26
enough; the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Maxwell’s motion for a new trial.*4
4. The District Court’s Respon
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page14 of 26
Indictment. The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell’s
motion without an evidentiary hearing.
2. The Indictment Is Timely
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page10 of 26
contemplates a broader restriction.”" And while Maxwell contends
that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed
ou
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page9 of 26
District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special
assessment. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
1. The NPA Betwee
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page6 of 26
Statutes § 796.07,7 and to one count of solicitation of minors to engage
in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.03.° He
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
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page5 of 26
Indictment. Lastly, we hold that Maxwell’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page2 of 26
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022,
judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the
Southern Distr