DOJ-OGR-00021119.jpg
641 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
641 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a court opinion or brief, dated February 28, 2023. The author argues against the retroactive application of a statute (§ 3283) by analyzing legislative intent, referencing Senator Leahy's remarks and Congress's rejection of a specific retroactivity provision in a 2003 bill. The argument is supported by comparing the rejected language to similar provisions in other statutes (Pub.L. 107-56 and Pub.L. 101-647) to conclude that applying the statute retroactively fails the legal test established in the Landgraf case.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kennedy, J. | Justice (dissenting) |
Cited in a parenthetical as dissenting in a legal opinion.
|
| Leahy | Senator |
Mentioned as Sen. Leahy, whose remarks are discussed in the context of Congress's rejection of a provision.
|
| Garcia |
Named as a party in the legal case citation 'Garcia v. U.S.'.
|
Organizations (2)
Timeline (4 events)
1984
The year of the Garcia v. U.S. case, cited for the principle that floor statements by a single member are weak legislative history evidence.
Key Quotes (2)
"agree to disagree"Source
— Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 623
(Used to describe an action Congress did not merely take when rejecting a provision, indicating the rejection was intentional.)
DOJ-OGR-00021119.jpg
Quote #1
"The amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section."Source
— Pub.L. 107-56, § 809
(Quoted as an example of language in a passed statute that is identical to a retroactivity provision Congress rejected in a different bill.)
DOJ-OGR-00021119.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document