DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
653 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
653 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal brief (likely by the Government) appearing in the appellate case of United States v. Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues that the statute of limitations for the charges against Maxwell had not expired due to the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. The text supports Judge Nathan's lower court ruling that applying this amendment was not an impermissible retroactive effect, distinguishing Maxwell's situation from the precedent set in United States v. Richardson.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; citing legal precedents (Richardson) to argue her case regarding statutes of limitations.
|
| Judge Nathan | District Court Judge |
Judge who presided over the lower court case; the document states she 'correctly determined' the application of the 2...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00021701'.
|
|
| Congress |
Mentioned regarding legislative intent and the 2003 amendment.
|
|
| 10th Cir. |
10th Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law.
|
|
| 3d Cir. |
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in case law.
|
|
| E.D. Va. |
Eastern District of Virginia, cited in case law.
|
Relationships (1)
Document discusses Judge Nathan's ruling on Maxwell's case regarding the statute of limitations.
Key Quotes (2)
"Maxwell cites United States v. Richardson... But Richardson, which was decided before Landgraf, is 'inconsistent with Landgraf.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
Quote #1
"Judge Nathan correctly determined that applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not create impermissible retroactive effects."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021701.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,637 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page54 of 93
41
remained subject to indictment in 2007,
once the changes were made. A dead
charge was not resurrected, and the un-
derlying nature of [defendant’s] potential
criminal liability remained the same.
once the changes were made. A dead
charge was not resurrected, and the un-
derlying nature of [defendant’s] potential
criminal liability remained the same.
United States v. Piette, 45 F.4th 1142, 1161-62 (10th
Cir. 2022). The decisions of other Courts of Appeals are
in accord. Sure Chief, 438 F.3d at 922-25; Jeffries, 405
F.3d at 685.
Cir. 2022). The decisions of other Courts of Appeals are
in accord. Sure Chief, 438 F.3d at 922-25; Jeffries, 405
F.3d at 685.
Maxwell cites United States v. Richardson, 512
F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975), and two district court deci-
sions that are bound to follow it. (Br.58-59). But Rich-
ardson, which was decided before Landgraf, is “incon-
sistent with Landgraf.” United States v. Nader, 425 F.
Supp. 3d 619, 630 (E.D. Va. 2019). Specifically, Rich-
ardson focused on whether Congress expressed a
“clear intention” to overcome the presumption against
retroactivity, 512 F.2d at 106, without engaging in
Landgraf ’s second step, i.e., considering whether the
statute “would have retroactive effect,” Landgraf, 511
U.S. at 280. Moreover, unlike the 2003 amendment,
the statute at issue in Richardson did not expressly
provide that “[n]o statute of limitations that would
otherwise preclude prosecution” of the relevant offense
“shall preclude” prosecution under the terms of the
amended statute.
F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975), and two district court deci-
sions that are bound to follow it. (Br.58-59). But Rich-
ardson, which was decided before Landgraf, is “incon-
sistent with Landgraf.” United States v. Nader, 425 F.
Supp. 3d 619, 630 (E.D. Va. 2019). Specifically, Rich-
ardson focused on whether Congress expressed a
“clear intention” to overcome the presumption against
retroactivity, 512 F.2d at 106, without engaging in
Landgraf ’s second step, i.e., considering whether the
statute “would have retroactive effect,” Landgraf, 511
U.S. at 280. Moreover, unlike the 2003 amendment,
the statute at issue in Richardson did not expressly
provide that “[n]o statute of limitations that would
otherwise preclude prosecution” of the relevant offense
“shall preclude” prosecution under the terms of the
amended statute.
In sum, the statute of limitations for the charges in
the Indictment had not yet expired when the 2003
amendment to Section 3283 extended the limitations
period, and Judge Nathan correctly determined that
applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not
create impermissible retroactive effects. Therefore,
the Indictment had not yet expired when the 2003
amendment to Section 3283 extended the limitations
period, and Judge Nathan correctly determined that
applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not
create impermissible retroactive effects. Therefore,
DOJ-OGR-00021701
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document