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 Na- than “failed to provide reasons for its upward vari- ance.” (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. 2018) (“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 en- gaged 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 of- fense, Judge Nathan found Maxwell’s crimes to be both “extensive” and far-reaching” and concluded that “the damage done to these young girls was incalcula- ble,” 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 con- duct and the scope of the harm,” and that the sentence must “send an unmistakable message” of general de- terrence to “those who engage in and facilitate the sex- ual abuse and trafficking of underage victims” that “nobody is above the law.” (SA461). Accordingly, Judge Nathan concluded that “a very serious, a very signifi- cant 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 inade- quately explained the sentence. DOJ-OGR- 00021738