mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021117.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "70 of 113",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Case document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page70 of 113\nthe Landgraf test.\" Enterprise, 391 F.3d at 408 (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 262-63); see also Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999); Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2004).\nThe legislative history of 2003's amendment makes it abundantly clear that Congress considered—and rejected—a retroactivity clause that would have expressly allowed § 3283's lifetime limitations period to attach to conduct predating its enactment. The House version of the bill included the following proviso:\nThe amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section.\nChild Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104, 108th Cong. § 202 (2003). When the House and Senate conferenced, however, this retroactivity provision was rejected.\nCourts give great weight to Congress' consideration and rejection of a legislative proposal in interpreting federal statutes, and such a clear expression of congressional intent ought to end the Landgraf analysis at step one here. See Food & Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144 (2000); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 104 (1983); Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982).\n55\nDOJ-OGR-00021117",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page70 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Landgraf test.\" Enterprise, 391 F.3d at 408 (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 262-63); see also Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999); Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2004).\nThe legislative history of 2003's amendment makes it abundantly clear that Congress considered—and rejected—a retroactivity clause that would have expressly allowed § 3283's lifetime limitations period to attach to conduct predating its enactment. The House version of the bill included the following proviso:\nThe amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section.\nChild Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104, 108th Cong. § 202 (2003). When the House and Senate conferenced, however, this retroactivity provision was rejected.\nCourts give great weight to Congress' consideration and rejection of a legislative proposal in interpreting federal statutes, and such a clear expression of congressional intent ought to end the Landgraf analysis at step one here. See Food & Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144 (2000); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 104 (1983); Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "55",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021117",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Martin",
      "Hadix",
      "Lattab",
      "Ashcroft",
      "Brown",
      "Williamson",
      "Napolitano",
      "Lawson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Enterprise",
      "Congress",
      "House",
      "Senate",
      "Food & Drug Admin.",
      "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms",
      "Fed. Labor Relations Auth.",
      "I.R.S.",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "1999",
      "2004",
      "2003",
      "2000",
      "1983",
      "2005",
      "1985",
      "1982"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "H.R. 1104",
      "§ 202",
      "§ 3283",
      "511 U.S.",
      "527 U.S. 343",
      "384 F.3d 8",
      "529 U.S. 120",
      "464 U.S. 89",
      "409 F.3d 106",
      "761 F.2d 135",
      "683 F.2d 688",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021117"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal brief or court filing, with citations to various court cases and statutes. The text is printed and there is no handwriting or stamps visible on the page. The document is likely a digital scan or photocopy of an original document."
}