DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
627 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
627 KB
Summary
This page from a legal document outlines the legal standard for retroactivity as established in the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products. It then introduces an argument from a claimant named Maxwell, who alleges that the District Court incorrectly applied a 2003 amendment to Section 3283 retroactively to her convictions on Counts Three, Four, and Six, which involved conduct predating the amendment.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Claimant/Appellant |
Mentioned as the person claiming the District Court erred by retroactively applying an amendment to her convictions.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited as setting forth the two-part framework for retroactivity in Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of prescribing whether a statute applies retroactively.
|
| District Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the court that Maxwell claims erred by applying an amendment retroactively.
|
| USI Film Products | company |
Named as a party in the case Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1994
The Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, which set a framework for determining retroactivity of statutes.
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is a claimant arguing that the District Court erred in its application of the law to her case.
Key Quotes (5)
"if Congress has expressly prescribed that a statute applies retroactively to antecedent conduct, the inquiry ends and the court enforces the statute as it is written, save for constitutional concerns."Source
— Weingarten (citing Landgraf)
(Describing the first step of the two-part framework for determining retroactivity.)
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
Quote #1
"statute is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity,"Source
— Weingarten (citing Landgraf)
(The condition that triggers the second step of the retroactivity analysis.)
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
Quote #2
"a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects."Source
— Weingarten (citing Landgraf)
(Describing the second step of the retroactivity framework.)
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
Quote #3
"If it would, then the court shall not apply the statute retroactively absent clear congressional intent to the contrary."Source
— Weingarten (citing Landgraf)
(The outcome if applying a statute retroactively would have impermissible effects.)
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
Quote #4
"If it would not, then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct."Source
— Weingarten (citing Landgraf)
(The outcome if applying a statute retroactively would not have impermissible effects.)
DOJ-OGR-00021691.jpg
Quote #5
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document