mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021691.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "44",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page44 of 93\n31\nAct of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, tit. II, § 211(1), 120 Stat. 587, 616 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3299 (2006)).\n3. Retroactivity under Landgraf\nIn Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part framework for determining whether a statute may be applied retroactively. At the first step, \"if Congress expressly prescribed that a statute applies retroactively to antecedent conduct, the inquiry ends and the court enforces the statute as it is written, save for constitutional concerns.\" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54-55. If, however, the \"statute is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity,\" then the court must turn to the second step, where \"a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects.\" Id. at 55. \"If it would, then the court shall not apply the statute retroactively absent clear congressional intent to the contrary.\" Id. \"If it would not, then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct.\" Id.\nB. Discussion\n1. There Was No Impermissible Retroactivity in Applying Section 3283 to Maxwell\nMaxwell claims that the District Court erred by applying Section 3283's 2003 amendment to her three counts of conviction, i.e., Counts Three, Four, and Six, because they involved conduct that pre-dated the amendment. As an initial matter, this argument ignores the fact that Counts Three and Six both charge\nDOJ-OGR-00021691",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page44 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "31",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, tit. II, § 211(1), 120 Stat. 587, 616 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3299 (2006)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. Retroactivity under Landgraf\nIn Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part framework for determining whether a statute may be applied retroactively. At the first step, \"if Congress expressly prescribed that a statute applies retroactively to antecedent conduct, the inquiry ends and the court enforces the statute as it is written, save for constitutional concerns.\" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54-55. If, however, the \"statute is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity,\" then the court must turn to the second step, where \"a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects.\" Id. at 55. \"If it would, then the court shall not apply the statute retroactively absent clear congressional intent to the contrary.\" Id. \"If it would not, then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct.\" Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Discussion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. There Was No Impermissible Retroactivity in Applying Section 3283 to Maxwell\nMaxwell claims that the District Court erred by applying Section 3283's 2003 amendment to her three counts of conviction, i.e., Counts Three, Four, and Six, because they involved conduct that pre-dated the amendment. As an initial matter, this argument ignores the fact that Counts Three and Six both charge",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021691",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2006",
      "2003",
      "06/29/2023",
      "1994"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "511 U.S. 244",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3299",
      "Section 3283",
      "Counts Three",
      "Counts Four",
      "Counts Six",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021691"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely from a federal court, discussing the retroactivity of a statute in relation to a specific case involving Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}