DOJ-OGR-00021871.jpg

Gasse2271 4226 Doconneen tl 0971 10901722044 3866886 / Faagd 7406646 We review a sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness, which “amounts to review for abuse of discretion.” 2 We have explained that procedural error is found when a district court “fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the [Section] 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails adequately to explain the chosen sentence.” The District Court did none of that. It is important to emphasize that the Sentencing Guidelines “are guidelines—that is, they are truly advisory.”** A District Court is “generally free to impose sentences outside the recommended range” based on its own “informed and individualized judgment.”*° With respect to the four-level leadership enhancement, the District Court found that Maxwell “supervised” Sarah Kellen in part because of testimony from two of Epstein’s pilots who testified that Kellen was Maxwell’s assistant. The District Court found that testimony credible, in part because it was corroborated by other testimony that Maxwell was Epstein’s “number two and the lady of the house” in Palm Beach, 52 Linited States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). “Regardless of whether the sentence imposed is inside or outside the Guidelines range, the appellate court must review the sentence under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 33 United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 38 (2d Cir. 2012). 54 Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189. 53 Id. 24 DOJ-OGR-00021871