DOJ-OGR-00021688.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page41 of 93 28 identifies no evidence that the Department of Justice made any promises not contained in the NPA.” (A.142- 43). Here, as below, Maxwell’s further request for a hearing “rests on mere conjecture.” (A.145). Judge Na- than did not abuse her discretion. POINT Il The District Court Correctly Concluded that the Charges Were Timely In 2003, Congress extended the statute of limita- tions for “offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse” of a minor to allow prosecution so long as the victim remains alive. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Attempting to undermine the clear legislative intent, Maxwell argues that the amendment did not apply to her case because her crimes both pre-dated the amendment and did not involve sexual abuse. These arguments fly in the face of the statutory text, legislative history, this Court’s own decisions, and the persuasive authority of other Circuits. The charges fell squarely within the amended statute of limitations, and this Court should affirm Judge Nathan’s well-reasoned decisions denying Max- well’s motions to dismiss the charges as untimely. A. Applicable Law 1. Standard of Review This Court reviews de novo both the denial of a mo- tion to dismiss an indictment and the application of a statute of limitations. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 276, 278 (2d Cir. 2018). DOJ-OGR-00021688