DOJ-OGR-00021736.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page89 of 93 76 POINT V The Sentence Was Procedurally Reasonable A. Applicable Law A district court commits procedural error if, among other things, it "makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation" or "fails adequately to explain its chosen sentence." United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). This Court reviews a district court's" application of the Guidelines de novo, while factual determinations underlying a district court's Guidelines calculation are reviewed for clear error." United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597, 601 (2d Cir. 2015). In explaining the sentence, a district court must show that "it has considered the parties' arguments and that it has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority." Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193. B. Discussion Maxwell argues that the District Court erred by applying a four-level leadership enhancement under § 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. That enhancement applies when a defendant was an "organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was . . . otherwise extensive," which must include the defendant's leadership of at least one other criminal participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 & cmt. n.2. Maxwell contests only whether the evidence showed that she led another criminal participant. (Br.84-85). DOJ-OGR-00021736