DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
578 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
578 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing that the District Court was correct in ruling that the charges against Maxwell were filed in a timely manner. The brief refutes Maxwell's claim that a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse does not apply to her case. The document urges the current court to uphold Judge Nathan's previous decisions to deny Maxwell's motions to dismiss.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Mentioned as the subject of the legal arguments, who requested a hearing and argued that charges against her were unt...
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
The judge whose decisions denying Maxwell's motions to dismiss are being defended in this document.
|
| Sampson | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Sampson'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice | Government agency |
Mentioned as not having made any promises outside of the NPA.
|
| Congress | Government body |
Mentioned for extending the statute of limitations for certain offenses in 2003.
|
| The District Court | Judicial body |
The lower court that concluded the charges against Maxwell were timely.
|
| This Court | Judicial body |
The appellate court being addressed in the brief, which is asked to affirm the lower court's decision.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation, indicating the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
Relationships (1)
The document discusses Judge Nathan's 'well-reasoned decisions denying Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the charges as untimely'.
Key Quotes (1)
"rests on mere conjecture."Source
— Unknown (describing Maxwell's request)
(Used to describe Maxwell's request for a hearing, suggesting it lacks a solid basis.)
DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,391 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page41 of 93
28
identifies no evidence that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA.” (A.142-43). Here, as below, Maxwell’s further request for a hearing “rests on mere conjecture.” (A.145). Judge Nathan did not abuse her discretion.
POINT II
The District Court Correctly Concluded that the Charges Were Timely
In 2003, Congress extended the statute of limitations for “offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse” of a minor to allow prosecution so long as the victim remains alive. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Attempting to undermine the clear legislative intent, Maxwell argues that the amendment did not apply to her case because her crimes both pre-dated the amendment and did not involve sexual abuse. These arguments fly in the face of the statutory text, legislative history, this Court’s own decisions, and the persuasive authority of other Circuits. The charges fell squarely within the amended statute of limitations, and this Court should affirm Judge Nathan’s well-reasoned decisions denying Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the charges as untimely.
A. Applicable Law
1. Standard of Review
This Court reviews de novo both the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment and the application of a statute of limitations. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 276, 278 (2d Cir. 2018).
DOJ-OGR-00021688
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document