mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021693.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "46",
    "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, Page46 of 93\n\n33\nof limitations for these two counts did not begin to run until 2004, well after Congress enacted the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. Maxwell's arguments about retroactivity are therefore inapplicable to Counts Three and Six.\n\nb. Applying Section 3283 to Maxwell Complies with Landgraf\n\nFurthermore, under the Landgraf framework, the 2003 amendment to Section 3283 properly applies to pre-enactment conduct for which the statute of limitations had not expired at the time the amendment was passed. Because the statute of limitations had not expired when Congress amended Section 3283 in 2003, that amendment extended the limitations period for prosecuting Maxwell, rendering the charges timely.\n\ni. Landgraf Step One\n\nAt step one of the Landgraf analysis, the question is whether Congress has \"expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach.\" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. When evaluating Congress's intent at step one, this\n\nof the motions to dismiss, see United States v. Rutigliano, 790 F.3d 389, 400 (2d Cir. 2015), the evidence at trial established that Carolyn continued to visit Epstein's residence through 2004. (Tr.1525, 1548-49; GX-1B; GX-3D through K; see also SA406-07 (District Court summarizing such evidence at sentencing)).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021693",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page46 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "33\nof limitations for these two counts did not begin to run until 2004, well after Congress enacted the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. Maxwell's arguments about retroactivity are therefore inapplicable to Counts Three and Six.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "b. Applying Section 3283 to Maxwell Complies with Landgraf\n\nFurthermore, under the Landgraf framework, the 2003 amendment to Section 3283 properly applies to pre-enactment conduct for which the statute of limitations had not expired at the time the amendment was passed. Because the statute of limitations had not expired when Congress amended Section 3283 in 2003, that amendment extended the limitations period for prosecuting Maxwell, rendering the charges timely.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i. Landgraf Step One\n\nAt step one of the Landgraf analysis, the question is whether Congress has \"expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach.\" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. When evaluating Congress's intent at step one, this",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of the motions to dismiss, see United States v. Rutigliano, 790 F.3d 389, 400 (2d Cir. 2015), the evidence at trial established that Carolyn continued to visit Epstein's residence through 2004. (Tr.1525, 1548-49; GX-1B; GX-3D through K; see also SA406-07 (District Court summarizing such evidence at sentencing)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021693",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Carolyn",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Congress",
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2003",
      "2004",
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021693",
      "Section 3283",
      "511 U.S. at 280",
      "790 F.3d 389, 400 (2d Cir. 2015)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}