DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg

CaseQa20-2200830-PAEI mdb duhént1781212 0 Ai eb 32702) 24ag Pagel L6of 26 Indictment. The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. 2. The Indictment Is Timely Maxwell argues that Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are untimely because they do not fall within the scope of offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and thereby do not fall within the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283.19 Separately, Maxwell contends that the Government cannot apply the 2003 amendment to § 3283 that extended the statute of limitations to those offenses that were committed before the enactment into law of the provision. On both points, we disagree and hold that the District Court correctly denied Maxwell’s motions to dismiss the charges as untimely. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment and the application of a statute of limitations.*° First, Counts Three and Four of the Indictment are offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors. The District Court properly applied Weingarten v. United States.*! In Weingarten, we explained that Congress intended courts to apply § 3283 using a case-specific ©! 18 U.S.C. § 3283 provides: “[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, 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.” 2° United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 276, 278 (2d Cir. 2018). 21 865 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). 14 DOJ-OGR-00014864