DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg

698 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 698 KB
Summary

This legal document argues that a District Court's interpretation of statute § 3283 is flawed because it relies on misinterpreted legal precedent. The author contends the court, following a Third Circuit opinion, improperly applied a quote from the *Dodge* case, which concerned a different statute (SORNA), to invent a legislative history for § 3283 that does not exist.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Pham Party in a legal case
Mentioned in the case citation U.S. v. Pham.
Nathan, J. Judge
Cited as the judge in the U.S. v. Pham case.
Schneider Party in a legal case
Mentioned in the case citation U.S. v. Schneider.
Dodge Party in a legal case
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Dodge.

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
S.D.N.Y. government agency
Referenced in the citation for U.S. v. Pham, indicating the United States District Court for the Southern District of...
District Court government agency
Mentioned as the court whose interpretation of § 3283 is being challenged.
Congress government agency
Mentioned in the context of extending a statute of limitations and its legislative intent.
Third Circuit government agency
Referenced as the source of an opinion (U.S. v. Schneider) that the District Court relied upon.
Eleventh Circuit government agency
Referenced as the source of a case (United States v. Dodge) quoted by the Third Circuit.

Timeline (3 events)

2010
Opinion issued in the case United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355.
11th Cir.
2015
Opinion issued in the case U.S. v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196.
3d Cir.
2022-04-01
Ruling in the case U.S. v. Pham, No. 12-cr-423, 2022 WL 993119.
S.D.N.Y.

Locations (1)

Location Context
The location of the court in the U.S. v. Pham case, referring to the Southern District of New York.

Key Quotes (3)

"§3286(b)’s use of the terms ‘foreseeable’ and ‘commission of such offense’ … dictate a case-specific approach."
Source
— Nathan, J. (Quoted from the U.S. v. Pham case ruling.)
DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg
Quote #1
"evinced a general intention to cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."
Source
— District Court (A statement attributed to the District Court's interpretation of Congress's intent when extending the statute of limitations for § 3283.)
DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg
Quote #2
"Our review of the language of SORNA confirms our conclusion that Congress cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."
Source
— Eleventh Circuit (Quoted from the United States v. Dodge case, regarding the text of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).)
DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document