mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021121.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "74",
    "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, Page74 of 113\n3656027, at *1 & n.1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2010) (agreeing with Government's concession that the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, Pub.L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (Jul. 27, 2006) (codified in relevant part at § 3299), which abolished the statute of limitations for certain offenses against minors, did not apply retroactively to allow prosecution of defendant under the Mann Act, even though the prior five-year statute of limitations had not yet expired).\nJudge Rakoff in this circuit observed that an expansion of a statute of limitation is “retroactive” if it applies to past conduct, even when it merely extends the time to bring an action that is not yet time-barred. Morales v. Irizarry, 976 F.Supp. 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 279) (“In the absence of some such legislative indication, such a retroactive expansion of a substantive provision like the statute of limitations will not be presumed”). Morales was a civil case. But Landgraf's “presumption against retroactive legislation,” which “is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence,” 511 U.S. at 265, applies with even stronger force in the criminal context. Unlike civil statutes, “criminal limitations statutes are ‘to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.’” Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522). See U.S. v. Gentile, 235 F.Supp.3d 649, 655 (D.N.J. 2017). Consequently, the extension of a criminal statute of limitations will not apply to pre-enactment conduct unless Congress has clearly stated that it should.\n59\nDOJ-OGR-00021121",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page74 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3656027, at *1 & n.1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2010) (agreeing with Government's concession that the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, Pub.L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (Jul. 27, 2006) (codified in relevant part at § 3299), which abolished the statute of limitations for certain offenses against minors, did not apply retroactively to allow prosecution of defendant under the Mann Act, even though the prior five-year statute of limitations had not yet expired).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Judge Rakoff in this circuit observed that an expansion of a statute of limitation is “retroactive” if it applies to past conduct, even when it merely extends the time to bring an action that is not yet time-barred. Morales v. Irizarry, 976 F.Supp. 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 279) (“In the absence of some such legislative indication, such a retroactive expansion of a substantive provision like the statute of limitations will not be presumed”). Morales was a civil case. But Landgraf's “presumption against retroactive legislation,” which “is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence,” 511 U.S. at 265, applies with even stronger force in the criminal context. Unlike civil statutes, “criminal limitations statutes are ‘to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.’” Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522). See U.S. v. Gentile, 235 F.Supp.3d 649, 655 (D.N.J. 2017). Consequently, the extension of a criminal statute of limitations will not apply to pre-enactment conduct unless Congress has clearly stated that it should.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "59",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021121",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Rakoff"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Congress"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Pa.",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "D.N.J."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Sept. 15, 2010",
      "Jul. 27, 2006",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "Pub.L. 109-248",
      "120 Stat. 587",
      "§ 3299",
      "511 U.S. at 279",
      "976 F.Supp. 256",
      "511 U.S. at 265",
      "397 U.S. at 115",
      "285 U.S. at 522",
      "235 F.Supp.3d 649",
      "3475902",
      "3656027",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021121"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a memorandum or brief, discussing the retroactive application of statutes of limitations in criminal cases. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}