Second Circuit Rejects Keith Raniere’s Latest Appeal, Upholds NXIVM Convictions

Appeal Denied: No New Trial, No New Judge

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Keith Raniere’s appeal, affirming Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis’s rulings that rejected his motions for a new trial, post-conviction discovery, and judicial recusal.

In short, the court said no—no new trial, no new evidence, no new judge—standing firmly with Garaufis.

In a summary order, a three-judge panel—Pierre N. Leval, Richard J. Sullivan, and Maria Araujo Kahn—unanimously upheld Judge Garaufis’s rulings, finding no abuse of discretion and no evidence of government misconduct.

Garaufis had done his job, and they left it at that.

For Raniere, it was another dead end in a maze of post-conviction motions.

Raniere, 65, remains in federal custody at USP Tucson, serving a 120-year federal sentence for racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and forced labor conspiracy.

NXIVM and DOS: From Self-Help to Control

Raniere’s conviction stemmed from his leadership of NXIVM, a purported self-help organization based in Albany, New York, which prosecutors described as a cult and pyramid scheme. Within it, a secret subgroup branded women and coerced them to provide damaging “collateral” to ensure obedience in a hierarchical “master-slave” structure.

Raniere was identified as the top “master” within DOS, which included approximately 105 female members referred to as “slaves.” Raniere was the only man in the sorority, though many women did not know of his role until this publication exposed it in 2017.

The group was described as a secret sorority intended, according to its members, to promote female empowerment. DOS offered leadership training. Women thought they were climbing toward freedom, until they found themselves branded with his initials.

Once called a visionary, Raniere now sits behind bars. He built a world of followers and ended up its prisoner. It was his followers who testified against him at trial.

The Mission Statement

He had been promoted as “the world’s smartest man” and “the most ethical person.” The organization offered courses known as “intensives” and operated under a formal mission statement.
Each class began with NXIVM’s 12-point mission statement read jointly aloud. The rules said in effect:

Don’t be a victim.

Honor your leaders.

Keep the secrets.

Bring in new people.

Make money for the cause.

The Myth of Genius

Before founding NXIVM, Raniere cultivated a public persona as a prodigy and polymath — claiming exceptional intellect, athletic achievement, academic distinction, and high ethical standards.
He promoted himself as the combination of Gandhi, Einstein, and James Thorpe.

Raniere said he could spell “homogenized” at age two, grasped quantum physics by four, was a concert-level pianist at twelve, a computer programmer at thirteen, and had earned three degrees from RPI by sixteen.

Raniere claimed he was the East Coast Judo Champion at age twelve and tied a New York State record for the 100-yard dash — both of which are unverified. He also claimed to play seven musical instruments and sing professionally, though no documentation or performance history supports it. His assertion that he required only two to four hours of sleep was repeated by NXIVM members, but observed as a coercive control tactic rather than a sign of exceptional ability.

Raniere’s most famous claim was of a 240 IQ— supposedly the highest ever recorded — based on an unsupervised “Mega Test.” The test’s creator, Ronald Hoeflin, later admitted widespread cheating, and Guinness World Records eliminated the category as unreliable.

Taken together, Raniere’s false biography established the myth that powered NXIVM — a fabricated image of genius, morality, and mastery designed to legitimize control and obedience.

Raniere’s Claim: Evidence Tampering

Raniere’s latest appeal alleged that the FBI fabricated or tampered with critical digital evidence — a Western Digital hard drive and a Canon EOS 20D camera — that contained explicit photographs of a 15-year-old identified at trial as “Camila.” Those images, discovered during a 2018 search, supported three predicate acts of child exploitation and child pornography within his racketeering conviction. Raniere claimed the FBI planted or altered the files, manipulated metadata, and falsified images to frame him.

Raniere’s post-conviction team argues that the FBI tampered with the digital evidence. They cite anomalies in metadata, irregular folder structures, and broken chain-of-custody records showing that non-forensic agents accessed and handled the camera card for days, and that one examiner admitted receiving it unsealed.

Graphics created byRaniere’s team.

Defense attorneys argue that file timestamps show impossible daylight-saving shifts and that at least one image was altered in Adobe Photoshop, then overwritten to conceal modification. He further notes that the FBI replaced its original examiner mid-trial with a new witness who testified that the data was intact.

The Second Circuit’s Response

The Second Circuit disagreed, finding that the allegations lacked factual or legal merit. The panel wrote that “Raniere identified no newly discovered evidence, much less evidence that was suppressed under Brady v. Maryland,” the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case requiring prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence.

The judges noted that prosecutors had provided Raniere with the digital materials before trial, including “the Hard Drive, Camera, photographs recovered from both, and the accompanying forensic reports.”

They emphasized that Raniere’s attorneys had the opportunity to examine the data and question the government’s witnesses.

“Raniere did nothing more than challenge evidence that he previously stated he was ready to challenge, that he had the opportunity to challenge, and that he did in fact challenge during his trial,” the order states.

The Trial Record

At trial, FBI Senior Forensic Examiner Brian Booth testified about the camera and hard drive metadata used to link Raniere to the illicit photographs. The defense cross-examined Booth, raising questions about data access and the possibility of alteration. Booth acknowledged that the camera’s memory card had been accessed “while it was in the possession of the FBI,” a fact the defense later cited to argue potential tampering.

The appellate court noted that Raniere’s trial lawyers made a strategic choice not to pursue that line of argument. “Nevertheless,” the judges wrote, “Raniere’s trial counsel did not pursue the issue, and at no point did Raniere overtly suggest that the child-pornography evidence had been doctored or planted.”

The panel concluded that even if Raniere’s claims were true, the disputed materials would not have likely changed the verdict. “There is no real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted,” the judges wrote, citing corroborating evidence, including text messages, witness testimony, and medical records confirming Camila’s age and her sexual relationship with Raniere.

The Defense Argument

Raniere’s team argues that alleged FBI tampering would have affected the trial’s outcome because the digital photographs of “Camila” were the foundation of the case. The twenty-two nude images—allegedly of a 15-year-old—transformed the proceedings from a consent-based adult case into one centered on child exploitation.

The photos, discovered eleven months after the FBI seized Raniere’s hard drive, fractured the joint defense of his five co-defendants, all of whom pleaded guilty shortly after their disclosure. The defense maintains that without the Camila images, the government’s case would have been far weaker, as it would have relied largely on adult relationships that could be framed as consensual ones.

The defense also argued that the courts’ refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on potential FBI tampering is not harmless error but a failure of judicial duty. The defense further asserted that even if Raniere were guilty, the integrity of federal evidence must still be tested. If the FBI tampered with evidence, the judiciary should want to know that independently.

Post-Conviction Discovery and Recusal Denied

The Second Circuit also rejected Raniere’s effort to obtain additional post-trial discovery, ruling that he had no “freestanding right” to new evidence after conviction.

Raniere’s defense argued that prosecutors withheld one piece of digital evidence that could confirm or disprove FBI tampering: the full forensic copy of the camera card.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Tanya Hajjar has long maintained that the defense was already aware, before trial, that the FBI improperly accessed the card without a write-blocker, making post-trial access unnecessary.

Raniere’s attorneys counter that this defies logic—if the Bureau admits a breach, the remedy is transparency, not concealment. They note that the camera card contained no contraband, yet prosecutors never provided a complete forensic clone, even after a second FBI report added more than thirty new files.

The Recusal Motion and the Salzman Episode

On Raniere’s motion for Judge Garaufis’s recusal, the court again sided with the prosecution, calling the claim meritless. Raniere’s attorneys had accused Garaufis of partiality for limiting the cross-examination of cooperating witness Lauren Salzman and for allegedly showing bias during the restitution phase of the case.

One of the most striking moments in United States v. Raniere came during defense attorney Marc Agnifilo’s cross-examination of Salzman.

Judge Garaufis abruptly halted the questioning, shouting, “That’s it! We are done!” and excusing the jury as Salzman began to cry. Agnifilo had been pressing whether Salzman’s views of Raniere shifted only after reviewing discovery materials and the government’s narrative, and whether she intended to harm any of the women recruited into NXIVM or DOS.

A “no” answer would have unraveled her cooperation agreement that depended on her having the intent to harm the alleged victims in the case.

Garaufis later justified his intervention, saying, “This is not DOS. This is a broken person… and not in my courtroom,” and afterward, “Before I’m a judge, I’m a human being.”

To Raniere’s defense, the episode symbolized a deeper imbalance: a judge visibly sympathetic to the government’s witness and willing to curtail the defense’s cross-examination.

The appellate judges rejected those arguments, quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Liteky v. United States (1994): “Expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger… do not ordinarily support a bias or partiality challenge.” The panel concluded, “Recognizing the challenges confronted by district-court judges on a daily basis, the Court commends Judge Garaufis for handling this seven-year litigation with skill, patience, and restraint.”

The Legal Aftermath

Monday’s ruling marks another defeat for Raniere, whose legal avenues are narrowing after years of appeals and post-trial motions. He may still petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review, though such petitions are rarely granted. His pending habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which challenges his conviction on constitutional grounds, remains on hold in the Eastern District of New York.

Raniere, who continues to maintain his innocence, has drawn support from a small network of loyalists who claim he was framed.

In closing its denial, the Second Circuit emphasized the overwhelming evidence against Raniere, including testimony from former followers and victims.

“Even setting aside the allegedly newly discovered or suppressed evidence,” the panel wrote, “there is no real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted, because the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to convict Raniere of sexually abusing Camila in September 2005.”

For now, the conviction — and Raniere’s 120-year sentence — stand. His projected release date is 06/27/2120—roughly 95 years from now. He will be 159 years old.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio