EFTA00156337

who was his employee. According to the record, there were several people employed by Epstein 
who interacted with "M" and 
and whom Ms. Maxwell supervised in her role as 
manager of Epstein's properties in the mid-late 1990s — e.g., 
in Palm Beach and 
various unnamed employees at Zorro Ranch. The record also reflects that Ms. Maxwell had 
some role in coordinating payroll and expenses for Epstein pilots, 
and 
ME, 
who transported "M" on Epstein's private planes. But these people had no 
knowledge of the criminal conduct and do not qualify as criminally responsible participants for 
the purposes of the aggravating role enhancement. 
Similarly, there is no evidence in the trial record that Ms. Maxwell supervised another 
criminal participant in the offenses against 
Apart from Epstein, 
was the 
only other person identified in the trial record as a criminal participant in the offenses against 
. Among other things, 
testified that 
scheduled massage 
appointments for her and took nude pictures of her at the Palm Beach residence on one occasion. 
(Tr. 1527-28; 1538-39). The record is clear, however, that Ms. Maxwell did not supervise 
. Rather, 
was hired by Epstein as his assistant to replace Ms. Maxwell and take 
over responsibility for scheduling massage appointments and other property management tasks at 
a time when Ms. Maxwell was moving on from Epstein and was no longer actively managing the 
day-to-day affairs of his residences. 
For example 
testified that 
was hired sometime between 2000-
2002 to be Epstein's assistant and that she, and not 
=, 
was Ms. Maxwell's assistant 
from when she was hired in 1996 up through the end of her employment in 2002. (Tr. 2332-33, 
2376-77).8 Espinosa further testified that in the last two years of her employment (2000-2002), 
s-
later clarified on cross-examination that he "didn't know what her exact job" was and did not know whether 
initially testified that he thought 
was Ms. Maxwell's assistant. (Tr. 139-40). But he 
17 
EFTA00156357

Epstein and Ms. Maxwell ended their romantic relationship and "went their separate ways": Ms. 
Maxwell "moved on" from Epstein, stopped coming into the office, started dating other men, and 
eventually entered a long-term, committed relationship with Ted Waitt. (Tr. 2370-71, 2374, 
2378-80). 
testified that 
"immediately took over" responsibility for answering 
the phones and scheduling the massage appointments at the Palm Beach residence as soon as she 
was hired. (Tr. 833). 
herself testified that there was a clear break in time between when 
Ms. Maxwell called her to schedule massage appointments and when 
called her. 
(Tr. 1527) (Ms. Maxwell called her in roughly "the first year or two" of her visits to the Palm 
Beach residence-2001-2002, according to 
and 
called her thereafter). 
recalled seeing Ms. Maxwell in the kitchen office of the Palm Beach residence during the period 
when 
scheduled her massage appointments. (Tr. 1527). But nothing in her testimony 
indicates that Ms. Maxwell supervised or directed 
or that Ms. Maxwell had anything to 
do with the massage appointments at that time. (Id.). Accordingly, there is no basis in the trial 
record to conclude that Ms. Maxwell supervised 
in connection with the offense 
conduct and therefore no basis to apply the aggravating role enhancement. 
Both Probation and the government contend that the aggravating role enhancement 
applies because Ms. Maxwell was the organizer or leader of criminal activity relevant to each 
victim that was "otherwise extensive." (PSR at 58-59). But this position ignores the first step in 
the analysis. Regardless of whether the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive," no 
aggravating role enhancement applies unless Ms. Maxwell supervised another criminal 
participant in the offense. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. The record does not contain any evidence 
was iin's assistant or Ms. Maxwell's assistant. (Tr. 204). He further conceded that his best recollection was 
that 
was "an employee who worked with Epstein." (Id.). 
18 
EFTA00156358

that she did so in connection with the offense conduct related to "M,",
groups. 
M, 
or 
. The aggravating role enhancement therefore does not apply to any of the three offense 
B. 
The Criminal Activity Was Not "Otherwise Extensive" 
Even if the Court finds that Ms. Maxwell supervised another "participant," the record 
does not support a finding that the criminal activity related to "M,',
M, 
or 
was "otherwise extensive," as the government contends.' Under the Guidelines, the Court must 
treat each minor victim separately and consider whether the enhancement applies based solely on 
the criminal activity related to that minor victim. See USSG § 2G1.3, cmt. n.6 ("[S]ubsection 
(d)(1) directs that if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction includes travel or 
transportation to engage in a commercial sex act or prohibited sexual conduct in respect to more 
than one minor ... each such minor shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of 
conviction."). For example, the government cannot use conduct from the 2001-2004 time period 
related to 
to justify applying the aggravating role enhancement to the criminal activity in 
1994-1997 related to "M" or in 1996 related to 
The government nevertheless attempts to justify the enhancement as to each of the three 
minor victims by making a broad assertion about the nature and scope of the conspiracy as a 
whole, rather than making an individualized determination that the criminal activity was 
"otherwise extensive" as to each. (See PSR at 59). Because that is insufficient to establish that 
the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive," Ms. Maxwell should, at most, be subject to a 
two-point enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1(c). 
9 The government does not argue that the aggravating role enhancement applies because the criminal activity 
involved "five or more participants," conceding that the trial record does not support the conclusion that five or 
more people criminally participated in the offense conduct. 
19 
EFTA00156359

IV. 
The Two-Point "Undue Influence" Enhancement Under USSG S 2G1.3O31(2)(B) 
Does Not Apply. 
Finally, it would be improper for the Court to apply a two-level enhancement on the 
grounds that a participant in the criminal activity "unduly influenced a minor to engage in 
prohibited sexual conduct." USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). First, it would constitute impermissible 
double-counting to apply § 2G1.3(bX2)(B) to the offense conduct related to "M," 
and 
because it would punish Ms. Maxwell for the same harm that was fully 
accounted for in the base offense level for Counts Three, Four, and Six. "Impermissible double 
counting occurs when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase the defendant's sentence 
to reflect the kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by another part of the 
Guidelines." United States v. Watkins, 667 F.3d 254, 261 (2d Cir. 2012). Ms. Maxwell was 
convicted of conspiring to "entice" and "coerce" minors to travel to engage in prohibited sexual 
conduct and "enticing" minors to engage in commercial sex acts. (S2 Ind. ¶¶ 12, 24, 27).1°
Webster's Dictionary defines the word "entice" to mean "to attract artfully or adroitly or by 
arousing hope or desire; tempt" and the further explains that the word "tempt" "implies the 
presenting of an attraction so strong that it overcomes the restraints of conscience or better 
judgment."11 Similarly, Webster's Dictionary defines the word "coerce" to mean "to compel to 
an act or choice" and further explains that the word "compel" "typically suggests overcoming of 
resistance or unwillingness by an irresistible force." 12 Accordingly, the base offense level for 
I° Count Three charged a conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. S2 Ind. 
16-19. Although this offense does not contain an element of "enticement" or "coercion," the offense conduct for 
Counts One, Three, and Five (the three conspiracy counts) was consolidated under Count Three for the purposes of 
sentencing, pursuant to the Court's order. See Dkt. 657. 
II Available at Meriam-Welistercom Dictionag, Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/coerce (accessed June 15, 2022). 
12 Available at Meriam-Wehrtercom Dictionwy, Merriam-Webster https://www.merriam-
webster.comidictionary/compel (accessed June 15, 2022). 
20 
EFTA00156360

Counts Three, Four, and Six already includes the concept of "unduly influenc[ing] a minor to 
engage in prohibited sexual conduct." The enhancement therefore should not be applied to any 
of the three offense groups. 
Second, under the 2003 Guidelines, which should apply in this case, the analogous two-
point enhancement only applies if "a participant otherwise unduly influenced a minor to engage 
in a commercial sex act." USSG § 2G1.1(b)(4)(B) (2003) (emphasis added). There is no 
evidence that "M" or 
engaged in a commercial sex act. Accordingly, the 
enhancement should not apply to their two offense groups (Groups 1 and 2). 
Third, the evidence does not support that 
was "unduly influenced" to provide 
sexualized massages to Epstein. The "undue influence" enhancement applies when "a 
participant's influence over the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor's behavior." 
USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B), Appl. Note 3(B). "[T]he defining characteristic of undue influence is 
that it involves a situation where the influencer has succeeded in altering the behavior of the 
target. " United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431, 443 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 
omitted). Apart from 
initially offering 
the opportunity to massage 
Epstein, the record indicates that 
sought out additional massage appointments herself 
and recruited other minors to perform sexualized massages to make more money. (Tr. 1527-28, 
1543-46). 
further testified that after she became pregnant, she returned to Epstein 
without being contacted to earn additional money. (Tr. 1548-49). In addition, 
was not 
so influenced by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell that she did whatever they asked of her. 
testified that she refused their offers to have her travel with them to Epstein's island. (Tr. 1534-
35). In sum, the record does not support the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell or anyone else 
21 
EFTA00156361

compromised the voluntariness of 
behavior. Accordingly, the enhancement should not 
apply to 
offense group (Group 3). 
V. 
The Correct Sentencing Range is 51-63 Months Under the 2003 Guidelines. 
By applying the 2003 Guidelines and eliminating the enhancements under §§ 4B1.5, 
3B1.1, and 2G1.3(bX2)(B), the correct sentencing range is 51-63 months, based on a total 
offense level of 24 and criminal history category I, calculated as follows: 
Group 1: Offense Conduct Related to "=" 
Base Offense Level: Because the offense involved a minor, the base offense 
level is 19. USSG § 2G.1.1(a)(1). 
19 
Specific Offense Characteristics: Because the offense involved a victim who 
had attained the age of 12 years but not attained the age of 16 years, a two-
level enhancement is warranted, pursuant to USSG § 2G.1.1(b)(2). 
+2 
Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 
21 
Group 2: Offense Conduct Related to 
Base Offense Level: Because the offense involved a minor, the base offense 
level is 19. USSG § 2G.1.1(a)(1). 
Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 
Group  Offense Conduct Related to 
Base Offense Level: Because the offense involved a minor, the base offense 
level is 19. USSG § 2G.1.1(a)(1). 
Specific Offense Characteristics: Because the offense involved a victim who 
had attained the age of 12 years but not attained the age of 16 years, a two-
level enhancement is warranted, pursuant to USSG § 2G.1.1(b)(2). 
Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 
19 
19 
19 
+2 
21 
22 
EFTA00156362

Multiple Count Adjustment 
Group/Count 
Adjusted Offense Level 
Units 
Group 1 
21 
1.0 
Group 2 
19 
1.0 
Group 3 
21 
1.0 
Total Number of Units: 
3.0 
Greater of the Adjusted Offense Levels Above: 
21 
Increase in Offense Level: 
+3 
Combined Adjusted Offense Level: 
24 
Total Offense Level: 
24 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should apply the 2003 Guidelines, which yield a 
properly calculated sentencing range of 51-63 months. Should the Court apply the 2004 
Guidelines, it should not apply the enhancements under §§ 4B1.5, 3B1.1, and 2G1.3(b)(2XB). 
Dated: June 15, 2022 
New York, New York 
Respectfully submitted, 
Is/ Christian R. Everdell 
Christian R. Everdell 
COHEN & GRESSER LLP 
Bobbi C. Stemheim 
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 
23 
EFTA00156363

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 
Laura A. Menninger 
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 
 
0 
I 
I 
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 
24 
EFTA00156364

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on June 15, 2022, I served by ECF the within memorandum upon the 
following: 
Is/ Christian R. Everdell 
Christian R. Everdell 
EFTA00156365