DOJ-OGR-00021114.jpg

599 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / appellate brief
File Size: 599 KB
Summary

This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on Feb 28, 2023. It argues primarily against the retroactive application of the PROTECT Act (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse). The text cites legal precedents (Diehl, Coutentos) to argue that the District Court erred in its interpretation of the statute's retroactivity concerning the April 2003 amendment.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Diehl Defendant in cited case law
Subject of the case Diehl, 775 F.3d at 720, regarding interpretation of § 3283.
Coutentos Defendant in cited case law
Subject of the case Coutentos, 651 F.3d at 816-17, cited by the Fifth Circuit.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Cited as having interpreted § 3283 through a categorical lens.
District Court
The lower court whose decision is being argued against/appealed.
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.

Timeline (1 events)

2003-04-30
Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 extending the statute of limitations for the life of the accuser.
US Law

Key Quotes (3)

"Thus, we conclude that § 3283 is inapplicable...."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021114.jpg
Quote #1
"The District Court erred in applying § 3283 retroactively"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021114.jpg
Quote #2
"Contrary to what the District Court held, the 2003 amendment was not retroactive."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00021114.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