mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003658.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6 of 22",
    "document_number": "206",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 22\n\nGhislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred (\"Motion\").\n\nAs the government agrees in its opposition (\"Opp.\"), the four Mann Act counts against Ms. Maxwell are timely only if the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (\"2003 Amendment\") applies to the conduct charged therein. The 2003 Amendment expands the statute of limitations for an \"offense involving\" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. Because the 2003 Amendment does not apply retroactively, and because § 3283 does not apply to the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged, the Mann Act counts should be dismissed.\n\nFirst, the 2003 Amendment cannot be applied retroactively because Congress did not intend it to apply retroactively. While the government cites several cases in which courts have applied the 2003 Amendment to pre-enactment conduct, the only court to do so after analyzing congressional intent under the two-step framework required by Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994)—and to even mention Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment—improperly excluded legislative history from its analysis. No court has applied the Landgraf framework, considered the legislative history, and still concluded that Congress intended the 2003 Amendment to overcome the presumption against retroactivity, as the government asks this Court to do.\n\nBecause Congress' clear rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment constitutes an express prescription of the amendment's temporal reach, the 2003 Amendment does not apply retroactively, and the Landgraf analysis ends at step one. Even if the analysis proceeds to step two, however, Landgraf does not permit the Court, without clear congressional",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred (\"Motion\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the government agrees in its opposition (\"Opp.\"), the four Mann Act counts against Ms. Maxwell are timely only if the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (\"2003 Amendment\") applies to the conduct charged therein. The 2003 Amendment expands the statute of limitations for an \"offense involving\" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. Because the 2003 Amendment does not apply retroactively, and because § 3283 does not apply to the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged, the Mann Act counts should be dismissed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the 2003 Amendment cannot be applied retroactively because Congress did not intend it to apply retroactively. While the government cites several cases in which courts have applied the 2003 Amendment to pre-enactment conduct, the only court to do so after analyzing congressional intent under the two-step framework required by Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994)—and to even mention Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment—improperly excluded legislative history from its analysis. No court has applied the Landgraf framework, considered the legislative history, and still concluded that Congress intended the 2003 Amendment to overcome the presumption against retroactivity, as the government asks this Court to do.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because Congress' clear rejection of a retroactivity provision in the 2003 Amendment constitutes an express prescription of the amendment's temporal reach, the 2003 Amendment does not apply retroactively, and the Landgraf analysis ends at step one. Even if the analysis proceeds to step two, however, Landgraf does not permit the Court, without clear congressional",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2003",
      "1994"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 206",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3283",
      "511 U.S. 244"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is printed and there is no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is likely a legal brief or memorandum."
}