{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "57",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 57 of 239\n\nThe defendant argues that Congress did not intend for Section 3283 to apply to pre-enactment conduct, and asserts that the legislative history supports this interpretation. Specifically, the defendant points to an earlier version of the bill, which contained an express retroactivity provision that was not included in the final version of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that \"the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively.\" (Def. Mot. 2 at 7). This is a selective quotation; the full statement regarding retroactivity is as follows:\n\nA final point on section 202: I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively. That language, which would have revived the government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality. We are already pushing the constitutional envelope with respect to several of the \"virtual porn\" provisions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well.\n\n149 Cong. Rec. S5137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 3283, it declined to adopt the language in the House-passed bill because it wanted the lengthened statute of limitations to apply only prospectively. Instead, Senator Leahy's comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for\n\n2018 WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (2016 indictment covering conduct going back to 1998); United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 622 (E.D. Va. 2019) (2019 indictment for conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim.\n\n30\nDOJ-OGR-00002991",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 57 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant argues that Congress did not intend for Section 3283 to apply to pre-enactment conduct, and asserts that the legislative history supports this interpretation. Specifically, the defendant points to an earlier version of the bill, which contained an express retroactivity provision that was not included in the final version of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that \"the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively.\" (Def. Mot. 2 at 7). This is a selective quotation; the full statement regarding retroactivity is as follows:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A final point on section 202: I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively. That language, which would have revived the government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality. We are already pushing the constitutional envelope with respect to several of the \"virtual porn\" provisions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "149 Cong. Rec. S5137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 3283, it declined to adopt the language in the House-passed bill because it wanted the lengthened statute of limitations to apply only prospectively. Instead, Senator Leahy's comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2018 WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (2016 indictment covering conduct going back to 1998); United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 622 (E.D. Va. 2019) (2019 indictment for conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "30",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002991",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Senator Patrick Leahy"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Congress"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D. Va."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Apr. 10, 2003",
      "Aug. 9, 2018",
      "1998",
      "2000",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Section 3283",
      "149 Cong. Rec. S5137, S5147",
      "2018 WL 4043140",
      "United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002991"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger filing, as indicated by the page number and document number in the header."
}