DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
664 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
664 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court opinion regarding an appeal by Maxwell. The court is analyzing whether the indictment against Maxwell was timely, concluding that the District Court correctly denied her motion to dismiss. The opinion focuses on the application of the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Appellant/Defendant |
Argues that the indictment against her is untimely and whose motions to dismiss were denied by the District Court.
|
| Weingarten | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation Weingarten v. United States, which is used to support the District Court's application...
|
| Sampson | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Sampson.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The court that initially denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss the indictment.
|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party against Maxwell, whose ability to apply the 2003 amendment to § 3283 is contended by Maxwell.
|
| Congress | Legislative body |
Mentioned as having intended for courts to apply § 3283 using a case-specific approach.
|
| United States | Government |
A party in the cited cases: Weingarten v. United States, United States v. Sampson, and United States v. Maxwell.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The District Court denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges as untimely.
District Court
An appellate court reviews the denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York, mentioned in a case citation.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes Maxwell's legal arguments against the Government's indictment in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (1)
"[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer."Source
— 18 U.S.C. § 3283
(Quoted in footnote 19 to define the extended statute of limitations at the center of the legal argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00021808.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,749 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page14 of 26
Indictment. The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell’s
motion without an evidentiary hearing.
motion without an evidentiary hearing.
2. The Indictment Is Timely
Maxwell argues that Counts Three and Four of the Indictment
are untimely because they do not fall within the scope of offenses
involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and
thereby do not fall within the extended statute of limitations provided
by § 3283.19 Separately, Maxwell contends that the Government cannot
apply the 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of
limitations to those offenses that were committed before the enactment
into law of the provision. On both points, we disagree and hold that
the District Court correctly denied Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the
charges as untimely. We review de novo the denial of a motion to
dismiss an indictment and the application of a statute of limitations.20
are untimely because they do not fall within the scope of offenses
involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and
thereby do not fall within the extended statute of limitations provided
by § 3283.19 Separately, Maxwell contends that the Government cannot
apply the 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of
limitations to those offenses that were committed before the enactment
into law of the provision. On both points, we disagree and hold that
the District Court correctly denied Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the
charges as untimely. We review de novo the denial of a motion to
dismiss an indictment and the application of a statute of limitations.20
First, Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are offenses
involving the sexual abuse of minors. The District Court properly
applied Weingarten v. United States.21 In Weingarten, we explained that
Congress intended courts to apply § 3283 using a case-specific
involving the sexual abuse of minors. The District Court properly
applied Weingarten v. United States.21 In Weingarten, we explained that
Congress intended courts to apply § 3283 using a case-specific
19 18 U.S.C. § 3283 provides: “[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude
prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child
under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for
ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.”
prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child
under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for
ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.”
20 United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 276, 278 (2d Cir. 2018).
21 865 F.3d 48, 58-60 (2d Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 313-
14 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
14 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
14
DOJ-OGR-00021808
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document