DOJ-OGR-00021774.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page32 of 35 childhood sexual abuse identical to that experienced by the victims in the case and lied to conceal his misconduct at the hearing. The Court abused its discretion in not granting Ms. Maxwell a new trial. POINT III (Point V in Appellant’s Principal Brief) THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING MS. MAXWELL The Government defends the Court’s decision to apply a four-level leadership enhancement under Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the trial evidence did not support a finding that Ms. Maxwell was an “organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was...otherwise extensive,” because there was no evidence that she supervised another criminal participant. Specifically, the court’s finding that Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen, who the Government claimed was a criminal participant but chose not to indict, is unsupported by the record. See Br. 77. This error coupled with the Court’s failure to provide reasons for its upward variance as required by 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(c)(2), requires that Ms. Maxwell be resentenced. To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants. See USSG Section 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. The Government at sentencing correctly conceded that there was no direct evidence that Maxwell supervised Kellen. A406. The two pilots did not know who Kellen worked for and waffled in their testimony. Tr. 204, 26 DOJ-OGR-00021774