mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021700.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "53",
    "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, Page53 of 93\n40\ndoes not prevent the State from extending time limits for . . . prosecutions not yet time barred). As this Court explained long ago, while it is \"unfair and dishonest\" for the government to \"assure a man that he has become safe from its pursuit\" but then \"withdraw its assurance,\" it is permissible to extend a statute of limitations \"while the chase is on.\" Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420, 426 (2d Cir. 1928) (L. Hand, J.). These ex post facto cases are particularly instructive here because \"Landgraf and the Ex Post Facto Clause are informed by the same retroactivity concerns.\" Cruz, 773 F.3d at 145; see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 266 (citing the Ex Post Facto Clause as an \"expression\" of \"the antiretroactivity principle\" it was applying).\nThus, applying the Section 3283's 2003 amendment to Maxwell's unexpired charges is permissible under Landgraf. As the Tenth Circuit recently explained with respect to the very same statute of limitations at issue here:\nBy extending the unexpired statute of limitations, Congress did not increase [defendant's] exposure to prosecution retroactively. It did not raise the penalty for the charged offense. It did not redefine the offense to make it easier to establish. It did not expose [defendant] to criminal prosecution anew. It merely altered the ongoing charging period for the conduct that had already exposed him to criminal prosecution. [Defendant] was subject to indictment in 2002, before the statutes of limitations were extended, and he\nDOJ-OGR-00021700",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page53 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "40\ndoes not prevent the State from extending time limits for . . . prosecutions not yet time barred). As this Court explained long ago, while it is \"unfair and dishonest\" for the government to \"assure a man that he has become safe from its pursuit\" but then \"withdraw its assurance,\" it is permissible to extend a statute of limitations \"while the chase is on.\" Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420, 426 (2d Cir. 1928) (L. Hand, J.). These ex post facto cases are particularly instructive here because \"Landgraf and the Ex Post Facto Clause are informed by the same retroactivity concerns.\" Cruz, 773 F.3d at 145; see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 266 (citing the Ex Post Facto Clause as an \"expression\" of \"the antiretroactivity principle\" it was applying).\nThus, applying the Section 3283's 2003 amendment to Maxwell's unexpired charges is permissible under Landgraf. As the Tenth Circuit recently explained with respect to the very same statute of limitations at issue here:\nBy extending the unexpired statute of limitations, Congress did not increase [defendant's] exposure to prosecution retroactively. It did not raise the penalty for the charged offense. It did not redefine the offense to make it easier to establish. It did not expose [defendant] to criminal prosecution anew. It merely altered the ongoing charging period for the conduct that had already exposed him to criminal prosecution. [Defendant] was subject to indictment in 2002, before the statutes of limitations were extended, and he",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021700",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "L. Hand"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Tenth Circuit",
      "Congress",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "2002",
      "2003",
      "1928"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021700",
      "Section 3283",
      "23 F.2d 420",
      "773 F.3d 145",
      "511 U.S. 266"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely from a federal court, discussing the application of statutes of limitations and ex post facto laws. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}