{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14 of 25",
    "document_number": "144",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 25\ntypically give it great weight in interpreting federal statutes. See, e.g., Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144 (2000) (noting that \"Congress considered and rejected\" federal bills that would have granted the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 104 (1983) (noting that Congress had \"expressly considered and ultimately rejected\" proposed interpretation of Civil Service Reform Act); Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that legislative history, including conference report, \"plainly establishes that Congress expressly considered broader remedies\" against IRS for retaliatory audits \"before rejecting them\"); United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 1985) (\"legislative history of the [Speedy Trial] Act clearly indicates that Congress considered and rejected defendant's suggestion\" that dismissal sanction be applied to certain subsequent charges); United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982) (characterizing conference committee's rejection of Senate proposal to permit use of plea bargaining statements for impeachment purposes under Fed. R. Evid. 410 as \"demonstrating Congress' explicit intention to preclude use\" of such statements). It cannot reasonably be disputed that Congress intended that the 2003 Amendment would not apply retroactively.\nNothing in Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017), the only Second Circuit case that analyzes the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment, is inconsistent with this analysis. In Weingarten, the court's analysis was in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Thus, Weingarten offers little more than a distraction from the analysis required here: The court was not required to and did not decide the merits of the issue, noting that \"[t]he underlying merits question remains for another day, another case.\" Id. at 58. Moreover, the defendant in Weingarten did not raise, and the court did not consider, the argument that Congress\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00002662",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "typically give it great weight in interpreting federal statutes. See, e.g., Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144 (2000) (noting that \"Congress considered and rejected\" federal bills that would have granted the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 104 (1983) (noting that Congress had \"expressly considered and ultimately rejected\" proposed interpretation of Civil Service Reform Act); Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that legislative history, including conference report, \"plainly establishes that Congress expressly considered broader remedies\" against IRS for retaliatory audits \"before rejecting them\"); United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 1985) (\"legislative history of the [Speedy Trial] Act clearly indicates that Congress considered and rejected defendant's suggestion\" that dismissal sanction be applied to certain subsequent charges); United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982) (characterizing conference committee's rejection of Senate proposal to permit use of plea bargaining statements for impeachment purposes under Fed. R. Evid. 410 as \"demonstrating Congress' explicit intention to preclude use\" of such statements). It cannot reasonably be disputed that Congress intended that the 2003 Amendment would not apply retroactively.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nothing in Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017), the only Second Circuit case that analyzes the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment, is inconsistent with this analysis. In Weingarten, the court's analysis was in the context of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Thus, Weingarten offers little more than a distraction from the analysis required here: The court was not required to and did not decide the merits of the issue, noting that \"[t]he underlying merits question remains for another day, another case.\" Id. at 58. Moreover, the defendant in Weingarten did not raise, and the court did not consider, the argument that Congress",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002662",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Food & Drug Admin.",
      "Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.",
      "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms",
      "Fed. Labor Relations Auth.",
      "Hudson Valley Black Press",
      "I.R.S.",
      "United States",
      "Congress",
      "Senate"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21",
      "2000",
      "1983",
      "2005",
      "1985",
      "1982",
      "2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 144",
      "529 U.S. 120",
      "464 U.S. 89",
      "409 F.3d 106",
      "761 F.2d 135",
      "683 F.2d 688",
      "865 F.3d 48",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002662"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a formal tone and legal language. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}