DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
698 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
6
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
698 KB
Summary
This legal document presents an argument against Maxwell's interpretation of Section 3283 of the U.S. Code. The author refutes Maxwell's claim that the phrase "offense involving" requires a narrow, elements-based analysis, citing precedents like *Weingarten* and *Nijhawan* to support a broader, circumstance-specific approach. The document distinguishes the cases cited by Maxwell by arguing they involved different statutory language, specifically definitions of a "crime of violence," which are not present here.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
A party in the legal case, whose arguments are being countered in this document.
|
|
| Weingarten |
Party in the cited case Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 59-60.
|
|
| Nijhawan |
Party in the cited case Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 32, 38 (2009).
|
|
| Holder |
Party in the cited case Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 32, 38 (2009).
|
|
| Schneider |
Party in the cited case Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196-97.
|
|
| Davis |
Party in the cited case United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2328-29 (2019).
|
|
| Leocal |
Party in the cited case Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 7 (2004).
|
|
| Ashcroft |
Party in the cited case Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 7 (2004).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of its intent for courts when applying Section 3283.
|
| Third Circuit | court |
Cited as having rejected an "'essential ingredient' test" in favor of a case-specific analysis for Section 3283.
|
| United States | government |
Party in the cited case United States v. Davis.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00021707'.
|
Timeline (6 events)
2019
Citation to United States v. Davis, which involved a statute defining a 'crime of violence' using an elements-based approach.
The author of the document counters Maxwell's argument, stating that the text of Section 3283 allows courts to look beyond the bare legal charges.
Relationships (1)
The document is structured to directly counter and refute the legal arguments made by Maxwell, citing case law to undermine her position.
Key Quotes (4)
"offense involving"Source
— Section 3283
(The key phrase from Section 3283 that is the subject of legal interpretation in the document.)
DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
Quote #1
"reaches beyond the offense and its legal elements to the conduct ‘involv[ed] in the offense’"Source
— This Court (unspecified)
(A quote from a prior court recognition of Section 3283's text, used to argue against Maxwell's narrow interpretation.)
DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
Quote #2
"consistent with a circumstance-specific approach"Source
— Nijhawan v. Holder
(A holding from a cited case used to support the argument that the phrase 'offense ... involves' allows for a broader analysis.)
DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
Quote #3
"the clear weight of authority"Source
— Maxwell
(Maxwell's characterization of the legal precedent supporting her argument for a categorical approach.)
DOJ-OGR-00021707.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document