DOJ-OGR-00021700.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page53 of 93 40 “does not prevent the State from extending time limits for... prosecutions not yet time barred”). As this Court explained long ago, while it is “unfair and dishonest” for the government to “assure a man that he has be- come safe from its pursuit” but then “withdraw its as- surance,” it is permissible to extend a statute of limi- tations “while the chase is on.” Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420, 426 (2d Cir. 1928) (L. Hand, J.). These ex post facto cases are particularly instructive here be- cause “Landgraf and the Ex Post Facto Clause are in- formed by the same retroactivity concerns.” Cruz, 773 F.3d at 145; see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 266 (citing the Ex Post Facto Clause as an “expression” of “the an- tiretroactivity principle” it was applying). Thus, applying the Section 3283’s 2003 amendment to Maxwell’s unexpired charges is permissible under Landgraf. As the Tenth Circuit recently explained with respect to the very same statute of limitations at issue here: By extending the unexpired statute of limitations, Congress did not increase [defendant’s] exposure to prosecution ret- roactively. It did not raise the penalty for the charged offense. It did not redefine the offense to make it easier to establish. It did not expose [defendant] to criminal prosecution anew. It merely altered the ongoing charging period for the conduct that had already exposed him to criminal prosecution. [Defendant] was subject to indictment in 2002, before the statutes of limitations were extended, and he DOJ-OGR-00021700