DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
678 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
678 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Mentioned throughout as the individual arguing that the indictment against her is untimely and whose motion to dismis...
|
| Weingarten | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the context of the case 'Weingarten v. United States', which the District Court applied.
|
| Sampson | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in a footnote citing the case 'United States v. Sampson'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The court that initially denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment.
|
| Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party against Maxwell, which she contends cannot apply the 2003 amendment to § 3283.
|
| Congress | Legislative body |
Mentioned as having intended for courts to apply § 3283 using a case-specific approach.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2003
An amendment to § 3283 was enacted, extending the statute of limitations for certain offenses.
The District Court denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a party in the legal cases 'Weingarten v. United States', 'United States v. Sampson', and 'United States...
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in the citation for 'United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 313-14 (...
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes Maxwell's legal arguments against the Government's indictment, specifically regarding the timeliness of the charges.
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
(Provided in footnote 19 as the text of the statute of limitations being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,752 characters)
Case: 20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1780-1 Filed 12/02/21 Page 14 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-00014864
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document