DOJ-OGR-00014864.pdf

--- Page 1 --- The image displays a page from a legal document, specifically a court case. The page is white with black text and features a header with the case number and page number. * **Header:** * Case Number: Case 3:20-cv-00330-PAE * Page Number: Page 14 of 26 * **Text:** * The first paragraph discusses the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion without an evidentiary hearing. * The second paragraph, titled "2. The Indictment Is Timely," argues that Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely because they do not fall within the scope of offenses involving sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and thereby do not fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283. * The third paragraph explains that the District Court correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss the charges as untimely. * The fourth paragraph discusses the application of a statute of limitations. * The fifth paragraph explains that Congress intended courts to apply § 3283 using a case-specific approach. * The sixth paragraph provides a statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnapping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer. * The seventh paragraph cites United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 276, 278 (2d Cir. 2018). * The eighth paragraph cites 865 F.3d 48, 58-60 (2d Cir. 2017); see also United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 313-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). * **Footer:** * DOJ-OGR-00014864 In summary, the image displays a page from a legal document that discusses the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion without an evidentiary hearing and argues that Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely. The page also explains the application of a statute of limitations and provides citations to relevant cases.