DOJ-OGR-00021693.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page46 of 93 39 of limitations for these two counts did not begin to run until 2004, well after Congress enacted the 2003 amendment to Section 3283. Maxwell’s arguments about retroactivity are therefore inapplicable to Counts Three and Six. b. Applying Section 3283 to Maxwell Complies with Landgraf Furthermore, under the Landgraf framework, the 2003 amendment to Section 3288 properly applies to pre-enactment conduct for which the statute of limita- tions had not expired at the time the amendment was passed. Because the statute of limitations had not ex- pired when Congress amended Section 3283 in 2008, that amendment extended the limitations period for prosecuting Maxwell, rendering the charges timely. i. Landgraf Step One At step one of the Landgraf analysis, the question is whether Congress has “expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach.” Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. When evaluating Congress’s intent at step one, this of the motions to dismiss, see United States uv. Rutigliano, 790 F.3d 389, 400 (2d Cir. 2015), the evi- dence at trial established that Carolyn continued to visit Epstein’s residence through 2004. (Tr.1525, 1548- 49; GX-1B; GX-8D through K; see also SA406-07 (Dis- trict Court summarizing such evidence at sentenc- ing)). DOJ-OGR-00021693