DOJ-OGR-00021120.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the District Court's application of statute § 3283 is improper because it creates "impermissible retroactive effects" without explicit authorization from Congress. The author cites several legal precedents, including Landgraf and U.S. v. Richardson, to support the established legal principle against the retroactive application of statutes, particularly criminal statutes of limitations. The document contends that because clear congressional intent for retroactivity is absent, the District Court's decision must be reversed.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Landgraf |
Party in a cited legal case (Landgraf) that established a “presumption against statutory retroactivity”.
|
|
| Richardson |
Party in a cited legal case, U.S. v. Richardson, where the Third Circuit rejected retroactive application of a crimin...
|
|
| Toussie |
Party in a cited legal case that articulated a specific canon in favor of repose.
|
|
| Gentile |
Party in a cited legal case, U.S. v. Gentile, which held that expansion of a statute of limitations did not apply ret...
|
|
| Schneider |
Party in a cited legal case, U.S. v. Schneider.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Government agency |
The court whose application of § 3283 is being challenged as having impermissible retroactive effects.
|
| Congress | Government agency |
Mentioned as the body that would need to provide authorization for retroactive application of a statute.
|
| Third Circuit | Government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals cited for its ruling in U.S. v. Richardson against retroactive application of a criminal stat...
|
| Supreme Court | Government agency |
Mentioned in relation to its ruling in the Landgraf case.
|
Timeline (4 events)
1975
The Third Circuit, in U.S. v. Richardson, rejected the retroactive application of a criminal statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Landgraf established a “presumption against statutory retroactivity”.
A court ruling in U.S. v. Gentile held that the expansion of a securities fraud statute of limitations did not apply retrospectively.
Key Quotes (3)
"impermissible retroactive effects"Source
— Unknown
(Describing the District Court's application of § 3283.)
DOJ-OGR-00021120.jpg
Quote #1
"presumption against statutory retroactivity"Source
— Landgraf case
(A legal principle that would foreclose retroactive operation of the statute.)
DOJ-OGR-00021120.jpg
Quote #2
"retroactive application [must] be avoided ‘absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result,’"Source
— Landgraf case
(A legal standard cited to argue that the District Court's application of § 3283 must be reversed.)
DOJ-OGR-00021120.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,706 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page73 of 113
2. The District Court’s application of § 3283 creates “impermissible retroactive effects” without authorization from Congress
Even if the text and legislative history of § 3283 were unclear, Landgraf’s “presumption against statutory retroactivity” would foreclose retroactive operation of this statute at step two. 511 U.S. at 293. Because “retroactive application [must] be avoided ‘absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result,’” which is lacking here, the District Court’s retroactive application of § 3283 must be reversed. Enterprise, 391 F.3d at 410 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280).
Were this Court to hold otherwise, it would stand in conflict with the Third Circuit. In U.S. v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975), the Third Circuit rejected the retroactive application of a criminal statute of limitations, citing both a general presumption against retroactivity similar to what the Supreme Court would later echo in Landgraf, and the more specific canon in favor of repose articulated in Toussie. See Richardson, 512 F.2d at 106.
Although Richardson was decided before Landgraf, courts continue to follow its holding that criminal statutes of limitations are presumed not to apply retroactively, even as to conduct that fell within the limitations period and could have been prosecuted at the time of enactment. See U.S. v. Gentile, 235 F.Supp.3d at 655-56 (holding that expansion of securities fraud statute of limitations did not apply retrospectively although the limitations period in his case had not yet expired when statute was expanded); U.S. v. Schneider, C.A. No. 10-29, 2010 WL
58
DOJ-OGR-00021120
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document