DOJ-OGR-00021033.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 58_02/28/2023 A-407 , 3475901, Page207 of 221 32 MesQmaxl 1 already been decided or conceded by the defendant. The court 2 found they wer ader or the defendant didn't contest that, so 3 the issue was only about whether the criminal activity was 4 otherwis xtensive. So that is not —- that is clear under i) Second Circuit law, that they have to supervise another 6 criminal participant, and it's clear from the guidelines too, 7 as the government concedes. 8 Let's just talk a bit about Sarah Kellen. I don't 9 think it is a fair inference to say from the trial record that 10 Ms. Maxwell was supervising Sarah Kellen. In fact, the 11 inference is exactly the opposite. And you can rely on 12 Carolyn's testimony alone for that; that she hers testified 13 that there was a clear break between when she says that 14 Ms. Maxwell was calling her to schedule for massage 15 appointments versus when Sarah Kellen took over and scheduled 16 for massage appointments. They did not overlap. There was a 17 break. That is corroborated by Juan Alessi no less, who said 18 the same thing. He said Sarah Kellen came at the end of my 19 employment, to his recollection, and as soon as she got there, 20 she took over the responsibility of scheduling the massage 21 appointments. Again, a clear break. 22 What the record shows is that there was a replacement. 23 Sarah Kellen replaced Ms. Maxwell, at least according to the 24 trial testimony; not that there was some sort of ongoing 25 supervision by Ms. Maxwell over Sarah Kellen. It couldn't be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.eee (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021033