mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021701.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "54",
    "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, Page54 of 93\n\n41\nremained subject to indictment in 2007, once the changes were made. A dead charge was not resurrected, and the underlying nature of [defendant's] potential criminal liability remained the same.\nUnited States v. Piette, 45 F.4th 1142, 1161-62 (10th Cir. 2022). The decisions of other Courts of Appeals are in accord. Sure Chief, 438 F.3d at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d at 685.\nMaxwell cites United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975), and two district court decisions that are bound to follow it. (Br.58-59). But Richardson, which was decided before Landgraf, is \"inconsistent with Landgraf.\" United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 630 (E.D. Va. 2019). Specifically, Richardson focused on whether Congress expressed a \"clear intention\" to overcome the presumption against retroactivity, 512 F.2d at 106, without engaging in Landgraf's second step, i.e., considering whether the statute \"would have retroactive effect,\" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. Moreover, unlike the 2003 amendment, the statute at issue in Richardson did not expressly provide that \"[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution\" of the relevant offense \"shall preclude\" prosecution under the terms of the amended statute.\nIn sum, the statute of limitations for the charges in the Indictment had not yet expired when the 2003 amendment to Section 3283 extended the limitations period, and Judge Nathan correctly determined that applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not create impermissible retroactive effects. Therefore,\nDOJ-OGR-00021701",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page54 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "41\nremained subject to indictment in 2007, once the changes were made. A dead charge was not resurrected, and the underlying nature of [defendant's] potential criminal liability remained the same.\nUnited States v. Piette, 45 F.4th 1142, 1161-62 (10th Cir. 2022). The decisions of other Courts of Appeals are in accord. Sure Chief, 438 F.3d at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d at 685.\nMaxwell cites United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975), and two district court decisions that are bound to follow it. (Br.58-59). But Richardson, which was decided before Landgraf, is \"inconsistent with Landgraf.\" United States v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 630 (E.D. Va. 2019). Specifically, Richardson focused on whether Congress expressed a \"clear intention\" to overcome the presumption against retroactivity, 512 F.2d at 106, without engaging in Landgraf's second step, i.e., considering whether the statute \"would have retroactive effect,\" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. Moreover, unlike the 2003 amendment, the statute at issue in Richardson did not expressly provide that \"[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution\" of the relevant offense \"shall preclude\" prosecution under the terms of the amended statute.\nIn sum, the statute of limitations for the charges in the Indictment had not yet expired when the 2003 amendment to Section 3283 extended the limitations period, and Judge Nathan correctly determined that applying the 2003 amendment in this case does not create impermissible retroactive effects. Therefore,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021701",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Courts of Appeals",
      "E.D. Va."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2003",
      "2007",
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "79",
      "3536060",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021701"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a legal brief or opinion, with a formal tone and citations to legal precedents. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}