DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
403 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / table of contents (appellate brief)
File Size:
403 KB
Summary
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii; file page 3 of 93) from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments defending the District Court's decisions, specifically asserting that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) only binds the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and that charges against Ghislaine Maxwell were timely under statutes of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3299).
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; mentioned regarding the binding terms of the NP...
|
|
| District Court |
The lower court whose decisions are being reviewed/defended in this document.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
2023-06-29
Document filing date recorded in header.
Court of Appeals (implied by Case number format)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction mentioned in relation to the USAO-SDFL and the NPA.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"The NPA’s Terms Bind Only the USAO-SDFL"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
Quote #1
"The District Court Correctly Concluded that the Charges Were Timely"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
Quote #2
"There Was No Impermissible Retroactivity in Applying Section 3283 to Maxwell"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,215 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page3 of 93
ii
PAGE
2. The NPA’s Terms Bind Only the
USAO-SDFL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
PAGE
2. The NPA’s Terms Bind Only the
USAO-SDFL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its
Discretion in Declining to Conduct a
Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Discretion in Declining to Conduct a
Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
POINT II—The District Court Correctly Concluded
that the Charges Were Timely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
that the Charges Were Timely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A. Applicable Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Standard of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2. Statutes of Limitations for Offenses
Against Children (18 U.S.C. § 3283) and
Child Abduction and Sex Offenses (18
U.S.C. § 3299). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Against Children (18 U.S.C. § 3283) and
Child Abduction and Sex Offenses (18
U.S.C. § 3299). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3. Retroactivity under Landgraf . . . . . . . . . 31
B. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. There Was No Impermissible
Retroactivity in Applying Section 3283
to Maxwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Retroactivity in Applying Section 3283
to Maxwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
a. There Was No Retroactivity as to
Counts Three and Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Counts Three and Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
b. Applying Section 3283 to Maxwell
Complies with Landgraf . . . . . . . . . 33
Complies with Landgraf . . . . . . . . . 33
i. Landgraf Step One. . . . . . . . . . . . 33
DOJ-OGR-00021650
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document