23a tactics.”°’ The District Court recognized that the sentence “must reflect the gravity of Ms. Maxwell’s conduct, of Ms. Maxwell’s offense, the pivotal role she played in facilitating the offense, and the significant and lasting harm it inflicted.”** And the District Court explained that “a very serious, a very significant sentence is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In sum, the District Court did not err by failing to adequately explain its sentence. CONCLUSION To summarize, we hold as follows: 1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein’s NPA with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAOSDNY. 2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment was filed within the statute of limitations. 3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial. 4. The District Court’s response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudi- cial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment. 5. The District Court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. 57 SA-459. 58 SA-461. DOJ-OGR-00000086