{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "317",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 9 of 14\n\napplicable limitations period has not yet run - offenses that by definition are those for which \"other law[s]\" of limitation would otherwise bar prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299. Moreover, as the Court also explained, not only does this kind of language unambiguously require retroactivity, it also does not result in any impermissible retroactive effects so long as it does not revive time-barred claims. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *7-8. The Court therefore joins multiple other district courts in concluding that, like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run. See United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 629 (E.D. Va. 2019); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010).\n\nThe sex trafficking charges are therefore not time-barred. Regardless of whether it was the general five-year limitations period in § 3282(a) or the extended limitations period for sexual abuse of minors in § 3283 that was applicable to Maxwell's alleged conduct prior to the enactment of § 3299 in 2006, neither had expired by that date. Thus, as Maxwell does not contest, § 3299 applies retroactively to the sex trafficking offenses in the indictment and the Government is permitted to bring those charges without time limitation.\n\nIV. Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous is premature\n\nIn her previous motions, Maxwell argued that either count one or count three of the S1 indictment, the Mann Act conspiracy charges, must be dismissed because the counts are multiplicitous. In the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court joined many other courts in this Circuit holding that pretrial motions of this sort are premature in light of United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), and the Court dismissed without\n\n9\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004983",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 9 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "applicable limitations period has not yet run - offenses that by definition are those for which \"other law[s]\" of limitation would otherwise bar prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299. Moreover, as the Court also explained, not only does this kind of language unambiguously require retroactivity, it also does not result in any impermissible retroactive effects so long as it does not revive time-barred claims. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *7-8. The Court therefore joins multiple other district courts in concluding that, like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run. See United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 629 (E.D. Va. 2019); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The sex trafficking charges are therefore not time-barred. Regardless of whether it was the general five-year limitations period in § 3282(a) or the extended limitations period for sexual abuse of minors in § 3283 that was applicable to Maxwell's alleged conduct prior to the enactment of § 3299 in 2006, neither had expired by that date. Thus, as Maxwell does not contest, § 3299 applies retroactively to the sex trafficking offenses in the indictment and the Government is permitted to bring those charges without time limitation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as multiplicitous is premature",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that either count one or count three of the S1 indictment, the Mann Act conspiracy charges, must be dismissed because the counts are multiplicitous. In the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court joined many other courts in this Circuit holding that pretrial motions of this sort are premature in light of United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), and the Court dismissed without",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004983",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nader",
      "Pierre-Louis",
      "Vickers",
      "Sensi",
      "Josephberg"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Va.",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "W.D.N.Y.",
      "D. Conn."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/13/21",
      "April 16, 2021",
      "2006",
      "Aug. 9, 2018",
      "May 8, 2014",
      "June 7, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 317",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3299",
      "§ 3283",
      "§ 3282(a)",
      "No. 16 CR 541 (CM)",
      "No. 13-CR-128-A",
      "No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE)",
      "459 F.3d 350",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004983"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 9 of 14."
}