mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021702.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "55",
    "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, Page55 of 93\n42\nstep two of Landgraf is satisfied, and Section 3283 applies retroactively. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55 (\"If [a statute] would not [create impermissible retroactive effects], then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct.\"). Accordingly, the charges were timely.10\n2. Section 3283 Reaches Counts Three and Four\nMaxwell separately argues that Section 3283 does not apply to Counts Three and Four because neither is an \"offense involving the sexual or physical abuse . . . of a child.\" Maxwell contends that these counts, which charged her with transporting a minor with intent that the minor engage in illegal sexual activity and conspiracy to do the same, are not offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child because a completed sex act is not an essential element of either charge. But Maxwell does not dispute that the evidence at trial established that her commission of Counts Three and Four involved completed sex acts abusing one or more minor victims. Nor could she, as Jane testified that she was\n10 As the Government argued below, and as Judge Nathan found, Count Six is also timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which eliminated the statute of limitations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 in 2006, and which also applies retroactively under Landgraf for the same reasons discussed above with respect to Section 3283. (A.196 (concluding that, \"like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run\")).\nDOJ-OGR-00021702",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page55 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "42",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "step two of Landgraf is satisfied, and Section 3283 applies retroactively. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55 (\"If [a statute] would not [create impermissible retroactive effects], then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct.\"). Accordingly, the charges were timely.10",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Section 3283 Reaches Counts Three and Four",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell separately argues that Section 3283 does not apply to Counts Three and Four because neither is an \"offense involving the sexual or physical abuse . . . of a child.\" Maxwell contends that these counts, which charged her with transporting a minor with intent that the minor engage in illegal sexual activity and conspiracy to do the same, are not offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child because a completed sex act is not an essential element of either charge. But Maxwell does not dispute that the evidence at trial established that her commission of Counts Three and Four involved completed sex acts abusing one or more minor victims. Nor could she, as Jane testified that she was",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 As the Government argued below, and as Judge Nathan found, Count Six is also timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which eliminated the statute of limitations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 in 2006, and which also applies retroactively under Landgraf for the same reasons discussed above with respect to Section 3283. (A.196 (concluding that, \"like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run\")).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021702",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jane",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021702",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3299",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1591",
      "Section 3283",
      "Count Six",
      "Counts Three and Four"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely from a federal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 55 of 93."
}