DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
671 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / appellate court decision
File Size:
671 KB
Summary
This document is page 14 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court given the 'we review de novo' language) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. The court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion to dismiss charges based on the statute of limitations. The text analyzes 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors and cites case law such as Weingarten v. United States.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Arguing that counts in her indictment were untimely; motion to dismiss was denied.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges.
|
|
| United States Government |
Opposing party in the legal case.
|
|
| Congress |
Mentioned regarding intent of 18 U.S.C. § 3283.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in footnotes.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (cited in footnote 21).
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell is appealing the indictment brought by the Government.
Key Quotes (4)
"The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell’s motion without an evidentiary hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
Quote #1
"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"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
Quote #2
"On both points, we disagree and hold that the District Court correctly denied Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the charges as untimely."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
Quote #3
"“[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
DOJ-OGR-00021861.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,749 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 107-1, 02/17/2024, 3665867, Page 37 of 52
Indictment. The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell’s 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
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
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.”
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
DOJ-OGR-00021861
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document