DOJ-OGR-00005194.jpg
744 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
6
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
744 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 12, 2021. The author argues against a prior legal ruling, the 'Schneider decision,' by citing several court cases to support a 'categorical reading' of statutes concerning sexual abuse. The text contends that opposing arguments misapply legal definitions from statutes like §3509 and §3283, particularly in non-Chapter 109A offenses.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Esquivel-Quintana | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 198 L. ED 22 (2017)'.
|
| Sessions | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 198 L. ED 22 (2017)'.
|
| Crocker | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Crocker v. Navient Sols L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2019)'.
|
| Montclair | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Montclair v. Ramsdell 107 US 147, 152 (1883)'.
|
| Ramsdell | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Montclair v. Ramsdell 107 US 147, 152 (1883)'.
|
| Dodge |
Mentioned as not being 'current on categorical holdings'.
|
|
| Davis | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319'.
|
| Schneider |
Associated with the 'Schneider decision' which was based on a specific definition of sexual abuse.
|
|
| Panner | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Panner 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101192 (E.D. Cal. 2007)'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Navient Sols L.L.C. | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'Crocker v. Navient Sols L.L.C.'.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case citations 'United States v. Davis' and 'United States v. Panner'.
|
Timeline (6 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. Panner, indicating the Eastern District of California.
|
Relationships (4)
Parties in the lawsuit Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions.
Parties in the lawsuit Crocker v. Navient Sols L.L.C.
Parties in the lawsuit United States v. Davis.
Parties in the lawsuit United States v. Panner.
Key Quotes (3)
"Courts must give effect to every clause of word if possible"Source
— Crocker v. Navient Sols L.L.C.
(Quoted as a legal principle from a 5th Circuit case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005194.jpg
Quote #1
"... if anything the statutes use of the present tense ... supports a categorical reading."Source
— United States v. Davis
(Quoted from a footnote (N.10) in a Supreme Court case to support an argument about statutory interpretation.)
DOJ-OGR-00005194.jpg
Quote #2
"any offense involving"Source
— Section 3283
(Quoted from a statute to highlight its use of the present tense.)
DOJ-OGR-00005194.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,261 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 16 of 22
instead opted to rely on the very uncommon definition of sexual abuse at §3509(a)(8) to save the day. See Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 198 L. ED 22 (2017) (finding that sexual abuse of a minor applies to those under 17)
This is to say - nothing of the fact sexual or physical abuse must be resolved as an expression. See Crocker v. Navient Sols L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2019) ( "Courts must give effect to every clause of word if possible"); Montclair v. Ramsdell 107 US 147, 152 (1883).
Finally Dodge isn't even current on categorical holdings, United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319, N.10 "... if anything the statutes use of the present tense ... supports a categorical reading.")
Section 3283's "any offense involving" is present tense, and doesn't mention "conduct".
At the end of the day the Schneider decision was based on the sexual abuse definition at §3509(a)(8) not a categorical rationale. Notably that definition never came into play until the United States started misapplying §3283 to non-Chapter 109A offenses in United States v. Panner 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101192 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (Applying §3283 to Chapter 110 offenses). See United States
This is to say - nothing of the fact sexual or physical abuse must be resolved as an expression. See Crocker v. Navient Sols L.L.C. (5th Cir. 2019) ( "Courts must give effect to every clause of word if possible"); Montclair v. Ramsdell 107 US 147, 152 (1883).
Finally Dodge isn't even current on categorical holdings, United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319, N.10 "... if anything the statutes use of the present tense ... supports a categorical reading.")
Section 3283's "any offense involving" is present tense, and doesn't mention "conduct".
At the end of the day the Schneider decision was based on the sexual abuse definition at §3509(a)(8) not a categorical rationale. Notably that definition never came into play until the United States started misapplying §3283 to non-Chapter 109A offenses in United States v. Panner 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101192 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (Applying §3283 to Chapter 110 offenses). See United States
7. Added 2251(a) as sentence enhancement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document