mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021114.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "67",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page67 of 113\n\nthe sexual abuse of a child. Thus, we conclude that § 3283 is inapplicable....\n\nId. at 817.\n\nIn Diehl, the Fifth Circuit has similarly interpreted § 3283 through a categorical lens. The defendant was convicted of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). To determine whether the defendant's offenses were \"offense[s] involving the sexual...abuse of a child\" under § 3283, the Court looked not to the facts of the case but, rather, \"the language of the relevant statutes.\" Diehl, 775 F.3d at 720. The Court expressly cited Coutentos and held that § 2251(a) was an \"offense involving the sexual ... abuse of a child,\" as the statute \"prohibits using or inducing children under the age of 18 to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating a visual depiction.\" Id. (citing Coutentos, 651 F.3d at 816-17).\n\nB. The District Court erred in applying § 3283 retroactively\n\nEven if the District Court were correct to afford § 3283 a case-specific rather than categorical construction (and it was not), it erred again when it held that the April 30, 2003 amendment to that provision—extending the statute of limitations for the life of the accuser—reached back to attach to conduct occurring before its enactment. Contrary to what the District Court held, the 2003 amendment was not retroactive.\n\n52\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021114",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page67 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the sexual abuse of a child. Thus, we conclude that § 3283 is inapplicable....\n\nId. at 817.\n\nIn Diehl, the Fifth Circuit has similarly interpreted § 3283 through a categorical lens. The defendant was convicted of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). To determine whether the defendant's offenses were \"offense[s] involving the sexual...abuse of a child\" under § 3283, the Court looked not to the facts of the case but, rather, \"the language of the relevant statutes.\" Diehl, 775 F.3d at 720. The Court expressly cited Coutentos and held that § 2251(a) was an \"offense involving the sexual ... abuse of a child,\" as the statute \"prohibits using or inducing children under the age of 18 to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of creating a visual depiction.\" Id. (citing Coutentos, 651 F.3d at 816-17).\n\nB. The District Court erred in applying § 3283 retroactively\n\nEven if the District Court were correct to afford § 3283 a case-specific rather than categorical construction (and it was not), it erred again when it held that the April 30, 2003 amendment to that provision—extending the statute of limitations for the life of the accuser—reached back to attach to conduct occurring before its enactment. Contrary to what the District Court held, the 2003 amendment was not retroactive.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "52",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021114",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Fifth Circuit",
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "April 30, 2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "67",
      "113",
      "817",
      "775 F.3d",
      "720",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)",
      "§ 3283",
      "651 F.3d",
      "816-17",
      "52",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021114"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely an appeal case, discussing the application of § 3283 and its retroactive effect. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}