{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "338",
    "date": "10/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 22\n\nInterest\n\nIn the above cause the court considers whether or not the statute of limitations at 18 use §3283 applies to defendant Maxwell's charges. Dieni faced this same issue on appeal. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015). The fact is the issue should not have been heard in the first instance on appeal, because Dieni had shown substantial evidence indicating that the United States was knowingly misapplying 18 use §3283, and requested an investigation referencing highly suspect facts. Since that time, extensive investigation into §3283's legislative history shows what its true purpose was. See the enclosed brief.\n\nDiehl has currently filed with the Western District of Texas, a Rule 60(d)(3) - fraud on the court motion with regard to the United States fraudulent misapplication of §3283.\n\nThe United States continues to knowingly misapply §3283's and does so again in the above styled cause.\n\n3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005181",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Interest",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "In the above cause the court considers whether or not the statute of limitations at 18 use §3283 applies to defendant Maxwell's charges. Dieni faced this same issue on appeal. See United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015). The fact is the issue should not have been heard in the first instance on appeal, because Dieni had shown substantial evidence indicating that the United States was knowingly misapplying 18 use §3283, and requested an investigation referencing highly suspect facts. Since that time, extensive investigation into §3283's legislative history shows what its true purpose was. See the enclosed brief.\n\nDiehl has currently filed with the Western District of Texas, a Rule 60(d)(3) - fraud on the court motion with regard to the United States fraudulent misapplication of §3283.\n\nThe United States continues to knowingly misapply §3283's and does so again in the above styled cause.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005181",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Dieni",
      "Diehl"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Texas",
      "Western District of Texas"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/12/21",
      "2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "338",
      "775 F.3d 714",
      "18 use §3283",
      "Rule 60(d)(3)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005181"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with handwritten content. The text is mostly legible, but some words may be difficult to read due to the quality of the scan."
}