mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021105.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "58",
    "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, Page58 of 113\n\nUSI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). Rather, such offenses could only have been governed by the 1994 version of § 3283, pursuant to which the statute of limitations expired once Defendant's accusers turned 25 years old. And it is undisputed that Defendant's accusers were all women above the age of 25 when the Government charged her in 2020.\n\nFor these reasons, Appellant's convictions under Counts Three and Four must be vacated.\n\nA. Section 3283 Does Not Apply to the Mann Act Violations (Counts Three and Four)\n\nUnder Counts Three and Four, the Government charged Defendant with substantive and conspiracy violations of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), more than 15 years after the fact. To accomplish this, the Government relies on § 3283's extension of the limitations period. But by its text, § 3283 applies only to \"offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Transportation of a minor or conspiracy to transport in violation of § 2423(a) is not such an offense, so Counts Three and Four must be dismissed.\n\nAt first blush, it may seem counterintuitive to assert that Counts Three and Four do not allege \"offense[s] involving the sexual ... abuse ... of a child.\" But longstanding legal precedent dictates a narrower application of § 3283. The Supreme Court has frequently adopted a \"categorical approach\" (or \"essential ingredient\" test) when interpreting a statute's references to other offenses or\n\n43\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021105",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page58 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). Rather, such offenses could only have been governed by the 1994 version of § 3283, pursuant to which the statute of limitations expired once Defendant's accusers turned 25 years old. And it is undisputed that Defendant's accusers were all women above the age of 25 when the Government charged her in 2020.\n\nFor these reasons, Appellant's convictions under Counts Three and Four must be vacated.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Section 3283 Does Not Apply to the Mann Act Violations (Counts Three and Four)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under Counts Three and Four, the Government charged Defendant with substantive and conspiracy violations of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), more than 15 years after the fact. To accomplish this, the Government relies on § 3283's extension of the limitations period. But by its text, § 3283 applies only to \"offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Transportation of a minor or conspiracy to transport in violation of § 2423(a) is not such an offense, so Counts Three and Four must be dismissed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At first blush, it may seem counterintuitive to assert that Counts Three and Four do not allege \"offense[s] involving the sexual ... abuse ... of a child.\" But longstanding legal precedent dictates a narrower application of § 3283. The Supreme Court has frequently adopted a \"categorical approach\" (or \"essential ingredient\" test) when interpreting a statute's references to other offenses or",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "43",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021105",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "1994",
      "02/28/2023",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "511 U.S. 244",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3283",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021105"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a legal brief or memorandum, discussing the application of a specific statute (§ 3283) to a case involving the Mann Act. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}