DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
653 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
653 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal brief (likely by the Government) appearing in the appellate case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues that the statute of limitations for the charges against Maxwell had not expired due to the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. The text supports Judge Nathan's lower court ruling that applying this amendment was not an impermissible retroactive effect, distinguishing Maxwell's situation from the precedent set in United States v. Richardson.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; citing legal precedents (Richardson) to argue her case regarding statutes of limitations.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Judge who presided over the lower court case; the document states she 'correctly determined' the application of the 2...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00021701'.
|
|
| Congress |
Mentioned regarding legislative intent and the 2003 amendment.
|
|
| 10th Cir. |
10th Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law.
|
|
| 3d Cir. |
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law.
|
|
| E.D. Va. |
Eastern District of Virginia, cited in case law.
|
Relationships (1)
Document discusses Judge Nathan's ruling on Maxwell's case regarding the statute of limitations.
Key Quotes (2)
"Maxwell cites United States v. Richardson... But Richardson, which was decided before Landgraf, is 'inconsistent with Landgraf.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Nathan correctly determined that applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not create impermissible retroactive effects."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document