mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021120.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "73",
    "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, Page73 of 113\n\n2. The District Court's application of § 3283 creates \"impermissible retroactive effects\" without authorization from Congress\n\nEven if the text and legislative history of § 3283 were unclear, Landgraf's \"presumption against statutory retroactivity\" would foreclose retroactive operation of this statute at step two. 511 U.S. at 293. Because \"retroactive application [must] be avoided 'absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result,'\" which is lacking here, the District Court's retroactive application of § 3283 must be reversed. Enterprise, 391 F.3d at 410 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280).\n\nWere this Court to hold otherwise, it would stand in conflict with the Third Circuit. In U.S. v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975), the Third Circuit rejected the retroactive application of a criminal statute of limitations, citing both a general presumption against retroactivity similar to what the Supreme Court would later echo in Landgraf; and the more specific canon in favor of repose articulated in Toussie. See Richardson, 512 F.2d at 106.\n\nAlthough Richardson was decided before Landgraf, courts continue to follow its holding that criminal statutes of limitations are presumed not to apply retroactively, even as to conduct that fell within the limitations period and could have been prosecuted at the time of enactment. See U.S. v. Gentile, 235 F.Supp.3d at 655-56 (holding that expansion of securities fraud statute of limitations did not apply retrospectively although the limitations period in his case had not yet expired when statute was expanded); U.S. v. Schneider, C.A. No. 10-29, 2010 WL\n\n58\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021120",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page73 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The District Court's application of § 3283 creates \"impermissible retroactive effects\" without authorization from Congress",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if the text and legislative history of § 3283 were unclear, Landgraf's \"presumption against statutory retroactivity\" would foreclose retroactive operation of this statute at step two. 511 U.S. at 293. Because \"retroactive application [must] be avoided 'absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result,'\" which is lacking here, the District Court's retroactive application of § 3283 must be reversed. Enterprise, 391 F.3d at 410 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Were this Court to hold otherwise, it would stand in conflict with the Third Circuit. In U.S. v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975), the Third Circuit rejected the retroactive application of a criminal statute of limitations, citing both a general presumption against retroactivity similar to what the Supreme Court would later echo in Landgraf; and the more specific canon in favor of repose articulated in Toussie. See Richardson, 512 F.2d at 106.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although Richardson was decided before Landgraf, courts continue to follow its holding that criminal statutes of limitations are presumed not to apply retroactively, even as to conduct that fell within the limitations period and could have been prosecuted at the time of enactment. See U.S. v. Gentile, 235 F.Supp.3d at 655-56 (holding that expansion of securities fraud statute of limitations did not apply retrospectively although the limitations period in his case had not yet expired when statute was expanded); U.S. v. Schneider, C.A. No. 10-29, 2010 WL",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "58",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021120",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Congress",
      "Supreme Court",
      "Third Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "1975",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "73",
      "113",
      "3283",
      "511",
      "293",
      "391",
      "410",
      "280",
      "512",
      "105",
      "106",
      "235",
      "655-56",
      "10-29",
      "00021120"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, specifically a page from a legal brief or opinion. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is well-formatted and the text is clear."
}