DOJ-OGR-00000084.tif

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 New Mexico. This is enough to conclude that Maxwell was not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced.” 5. Maxwell’s Sentence Was _ Procedurally Reasonable Lastly, Maxwell argues that her sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the District Court erred in applying a leadership sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and inadequately explained its above-Guidelines sentence.*! We disagree. We review a sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness, which “amounts to review for abuse of discretion.”? We have explained that 4 As the District Court found, “[t]he Indictment charged a scheme to sexually abuse underage girls in New York. In service of this scheme, the Indictment alleged that Epstein and the Defendant groomed the victims for abuse at various properties and in various states, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico.” A-393. 50 See United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (concluding that a defendant was not “unfairly and substantially” prejudiced because “[tlhe government disclosed the evidence and exhibits ... four weeks prior to trial”). 51 At sentencing, the District Court calculated a Guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Maxwell to a slightly above-Guidelines term of 240 months’ imprisonment. 52 United 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). DOJ-OGR-00000084