DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page64 of 113 corroborates Defendant’s interpretation. The Joint Report accompanying the 2003 amendment to this provision opined that the prior statute of limitations would not go far enough to allow the Government to prosecute “‘a person who abducted and raped a child.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66, at 54 (2003). This legislative history makes no mention of crimes, such as Mann Act violations, that do not categorically involve the actual abuse of minors. Rather than grounding its construction of § 3283 in the text or legislative history of the statute, the District Court relied almost exclusively on an inapposite decision from this Court, Weingarten v. U.S., 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017). The District Court conceded, as it had to, that Weingarten is not controlling (A147), but it essentially and erroneously treated Weingarten as though it were. The only question in Weingarten was whether the petitioner’s trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation by conceding that an indictment charging Mann Act violations was timely. See 865 F.3d at 52. The petitioner contended that his trial counsel should have argued that § 3283 must be interpreted under a categorical standard. See id. at 58. This Court disagreed only because “/i/t was not obvious at the time of Weingarten’s motion to dismiss, nor is it today, that a court must apply a categorical approach, rather than a fact-specific analysis, to determine whether an offense is subject to § 3282 or § 3283.” Id. at 58-59 49 DOJ-OGR-00021111