DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
663 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
663 KB
Summary
This page from a legal brief (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erroneously relied on the non-controlling case *Weingarten v. U.S.* regarding the statute of limitations (specifically § 3283 vs § 3282) and Mann Act violations. The text analyzes the legislative history of the 2003 amendment to argue that the statute was intended for cases involving the actual abduction and rape of a child, distinguishing it from crimes that do not categorically involve minor abuse.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Appellant/Defendant |
The party whose interpretation is being corroborated by the legislative history.
|
| Weingarten | Petitioner in cited case |
Referenced in the case citation Weingarten v. U.S.; his legal representation is discussed.
|
| Petitioner's trial counsel | Attorney |
Counsel for Weingarten, discussed regarding potentially deficient representation.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The lower court whose decision is being critiqued.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referred to as 'this Court' and '2d Cir.', the court hearing the current appeal.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution entity.
|
|
| U.S. House of Representatives |
Implied by citation H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
District Court relied almost exclusively on an inapposite decision from this Court, Weingarten v. U.S.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Joint Report accompanying the 2003 amendment to this provision opined that the prior statute of limitations would not go far enough to allow the Government to prosecute “a person who abducted and raped a child.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #1
"This legislative history makes no mention of crimes, such as Mann Act violations, that do not categorically involve the actual abuse of minors."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #2
"The District Court conceded, as it had to, that Weingarten is not controlling (A147), but it essentially and erroneously treated Weingarten as though it were."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #3
"“[i]t was not obvious at the time of Weingarten’s motion to dismiss, nor is it today, that a court must apply a categorical approach, rather than a fact-specific analysis, to determine whether an offense is subject to § 3282 or § 3283.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,570 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page64 of 113
corroborates Defendant’s interpretation. The Joint Report accompanying the 2003
amendment to this provision opined that the prior statute of limitations would not
go far enough to allow the Government to prosecute “a person who abducted and
raped a child.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66, at 54 (2003). This legislative history
makes no mention of crimes, such as Mann Act violations, that do not categorically
involve the actual abuse of minors.
amendment to this provision opined that the prior statute of limitations would not
go far enough to allow the Government to prosecute “a person who abducted and
raped a child.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66, at 54 (2003). This legislative history
makes no mention of crimes, such as Mann Act violations, that do not categorically
involve the actual abuse of minors.
Rather than grounding its construction of § 3283 in the text or legislative
history of the statute, the District Court relied almost exclusively on an inapposite
decision from this Court, Weingarten v. U.S., 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017). The
District Court conceded, as it had to, that Weingarten is not controlling (A147), but
it essentially and erroneously treated Weingarten as though it were. The only
question in Weingarten was whether the petitioner’s trial counsel provided
constitutionally deficient representation by conceding that an indictment charging
Mann Act violations was timely. See 865 F.3d at 52. The petitioner contended
that his trial counsel should have argued that § 3283 must be interpreted under a
categorical standard. See id. at 58. This Court disagreed only because “[i]t was
not obvious at the time of Weingarten’s motion to dismiss, nor is it today, that a
court must apply a categorical approach, rather than a fact-specific analysis, to
determine whether an offense is subject to § 3282 or § 3283.” Id. at 58-59
history of the statute, the District Court relied almost exclusively on an inapposite
decision from this Court, Weingarten v. U.S., 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017). The
District Court conceded, as it had to, that Weingarten is not controlling (A147), but
it essentially and erroneously treated Weingarten as though it were. The only
question in Weingarten was whether the petitioner’s trial counsel provided
constitutionally deficient representation by conceding that an indictment charging
Mann Act violations was timely. See 865 F.3d at 52. The petitioner contended
that his trial counsel should have argued that § 3283 must be interpreted under a
categorical standard. See id. at 58. This Court disagreed only because “[i]t was
not obvious at the time of Weingarten’s motion to dismiss, nor is it today, that a
court must apply a categorical approach, rather than a fact-specific analysis, to
determine whether an offense is subject to § 3282 or § 3283.” Id. at 58-59
49
DOJ-OGR-00021111
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document