mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021124.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "77",
    "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, Page77 of 113\n\n2005). But neither decision cited Landgraf; purported to follow its two-step framework; or examined §3283's legislative history. Instead, both decisions simply assumed that a criminal statute of limitations can be applied retroactively absent an Ex Post Facto problem under Stogner. See Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d at 924; Jeffries, 405 F.3d at 685. But see Richardson, supra.\n\nC. Count Six is also barred by the Statute of Limitations\n\nCount Six (2001-2004) charging §1591 is also time-barred because the 2003 amendment to §3283 cannot be applied retroactively under Landgraf for the reasons stated above. In addition, §3299 cannot be applied retroactively. In 2006, Congress enacted §3299 to eliminate the limitations period for §1591. But since the sex trafficking in Count Six predates the enactment of §3299, Count Six is time-barred unless the statute applies retroactively. Landgraf's \"presumption against statutory retroactivity\" forecloses retroactive operation of this statute at step two as the Government has conceded elsewhere. 511 U.S. at 293. see U.S. v. Schneider, C.A. No. 10-29, 2010 WL 3656027, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2010) citing U.S. v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975). Accordingly, Count Six is time-barred.\n\n62\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021124",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page77 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2005). But neither decision cited Landgraf; purported to follow its two-step framework; or examined §3283's legislative history. Instead, both decisions simply assumed that a criminal statute of limitations can be applied retroactively absent an Ex Post Facto problem under Stogner. See Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d at 924; Jeffries, 405 F.3d at 685. But see Richardson, supra.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Count Six is also barred by the Statute of Limitations",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Count Six (2001-2004) charging §1591 is also time-barred because the 2003 amendment to §3283 cannot be applied retroactively under Landgraf for the reasons stated above. In addition, §3299 cannot be applied retroactively. In 2006, Congress enacted §3299 to eliminate the limitations period for §1591. But since the sex trafficking in Count Six predates the enactment of §3299, Count Six is time-barred unless the statute applies retroactively. Landgraf's \"presumption against statutory retroactivity\" forecloses retroactive operation of this statute at step two as the Government has conceded elsewhere. 511 U.S. at 293. see U.S. v. Schneider, C.A. No. 10-29, 2010 WL 3656027, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2010) citing U.S. v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975). Accordingly, Count Six is time-barred.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "62",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021124",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Pa."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2001-2004",
      "2003",
      "2005",
      "2006",
      "02/28/2023",
      "Sept. 15, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "§3283",
      "§1591",
      "§3299",
      "C.A. No. 10-29",
      "2010 WL 3656027",
      "511 U.S. at 293",
      "512 F.2d 105",
      "438 F.3d at 924",
      "405 F.3d at 685",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021124"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the statute of limitations in a legal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}